PDA

View Full Version : Who is the better CF prospect right now, Heisey or Stubbs?



Pages : [1] 2

fearofpopvol1
05-31-2009, 11:59 PM
http://louisville.bats.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Drew%20Stubbs&pos=&sid=t416&t=p_pbp&pid=453211

&

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Chris%20Heisey&pos=&sid=t249&t=p_pbp&pid=502317

Their both about the same age. I've not seen either play in person, but it seems like Stubbs has an advantage on the glove side, but Heisey is better with the bat. Heisey has 16 doubles, 8 HRs and he rarely whiffs. His stats are other worldly at the moment.

Both are having pretty fine years, although Stubbs is having his year at AAA while Heisey is having his at AA. Even still, and I know the sample size is small and Heisey will regress some, but Stubbs NEVER put up these kind of numbers at AA.

Both of these guys aren't going to be your CFs of the future. So what do you do here? Do you trade 1 of the 2 now? Both players and their value are at an all time high right now.

I'm really impressed by the progress Stubbs has made, I don't know why...but I just can't fully trust Stubbs (even though I do want him to succeed. I think I would try to move Stubbs and look at Heisey as the CF of the future. Especially since Taveras is signed for another year anyway. Move Stubbs now (or soon) and promote Heisey to AAA and then he'll be on the right timetable for The Show.

RedEye
06-01-2009, 12:01 AM
I'm not sure I really understand the hurry to trade one of these guys right away. Decent hitting CF are a pretty rare commodity--and if they can play CF that also means they can cover the other OF positions as well. Why not an OF of Heisey-Stubbs-Bruce in 2011?

RedEye
06-01-2009, 12:03 AM
To answer your question though, I pretty much agree with your assessment. Stubbs is a special defender, but Heisey looks to have the better bat right now. Both are looking like legit prospects... so that makes the decision tough. I think I'll go with Stubbs if only because plus defense in CF is so rare. But Heisey is on the come, that's for sure. They are both on the organizational top-5 list at this point, I would guess.

fearofpopvol1
06-01-2009, 12:07 AM
To answer your question though, I pretty much agree with your assessment. Stubbs is a special defender, but Heisey looks to have the better bat right now. Both are looking like legit prospects... so that makes the decision tough. I think I'll go with Stubbs if only because plus defense in CF is so rare. But Heisey is on the come, that's for sure. They are both on the organizational top-5 list at this point, I would guess.

I wouldn't say it's hurry so much as it is...both are seeing their value at an all time high right now. I don't know that it will get too much higher, as a prospect. The Reds obviously have some needs. If you could trade 1 of those guys and get maybe not an elite SS prospect, but a good one...wouldn't that be worth it? Especially since you have a surplus at that position? And LF looks like it might be crowded for the Reds soon. If Votto turns out to be okay...he may slide out there to make room for Alonso or Todd Frazier may be the LF too.

bellhead
06-01-2009, 08:59 AM
It looks like we a problem, rarely seen in the Reds organization, two plus players at the same position...Should make for a fun spring training next year.

HokieRed
06-01-2009, 11:25 AM
Not to get the thread off track, but I think the question could also be posed this way: Is Heisey or Frazier the better prospect, if Frazier is going to have to be a corner outfielder? Heisey's numbers this year are easily good enough to cause us to begin thinking about him as a corner propect, and they're better than Frazier's currently at the same level. IMO, Frazier remains the better prospect, but we may well have both of them and Stubbs in Cinti. lineups in the future, which is one reason I hope that in another month, at least, they get Frazier to Louisville, install him at 3b, and decide whether he's going to be able to play there.

fearofpopvol1
06-01-2009, 12:59 PM
Not to get the thread off track, but I think the question could also be posed this way: Is Heisey or Frazier the better prospect, if Frazier is going to have to be a corner outfielder? Heisey's numbers this year are easily good enough to cause us to begin thinking about him as a corner propect, and they're better than Frazier's currently at the same level. IMO, Frazier remains the better prospect, but we may well have both of them and Stubbs in Cinti. lineups in the future, which is one reason I hope that in another month, at least, they get Frazier to Louisville, install him at 3b, and decide whether he's going to be able to play there.

Yes, but the 1 thing you're not addressing (and I realize this is an "if"), but if everything is okay with Votto...he realistically may be moved to LF to make room for Alonso. What happens then? Frazier could at least go over to 3B if LF is not an option. Heisey won't be able to.

Brutus
06-01-2009, 01:26 PM
http://louisville.bats.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Drew%20Stubbs&pos=&sid=t416&t=p_pbp&pid=453211

&

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Chris%20Heisey&pos=&sid=t249&t=p_pbp&pid=502317

Their both about the same age. I've not seen either play in person, but it seems like Stubbs has an advantage on the glove side, but Heisey is better with the bat. Heisey has 16 doubles, 8 HRs and he rarely whiffs. His stats are other worldly at the moment.

Both are having pretty fine years, although Stubbs is having his year at AAA while Heisey is having his at AA. Even still, and I know the sample size is small and Heisey will regress some, but Stubbs NEVER put up these kind of numbers at AA.

Both of these guys aren't going to be your CFs of the future. So what do you do here? Do you trade 1 of the 2 now? Both players and their value are at an all time high right now.

I'm really impressed by the progress Stubbs has made, I don't know why...but I just can't fully trust Stubbs (even though I do want him to succeed. I think I would try to move Stubbs and look at Heisey as the CF of the future. Especially since Taveras is signed for another year anyway. Move Stubbs now (or soon) and promote Heisey to AAA and then he'll be on the right timetable for The Show.

At this point, I would have to go with Heisey.

Heisey has a .365 Gross Production Average, while Stubbs is at a very respectable .282. Average GPA for CF a few years ago was .256. So league, park & minor league adjusted, they're both probably better than the average hitting center fielder.

That said, while Stubbs is considered the better defender, that's a pretty significant advantage in run production by Heisey. Even if he regresses slightly, he's looking to be an above average hitter continuing close to this current trend.

I adjusted Heisey's stats based on MLE projections. His adjusted GPA is .352 (70 points higher than Stubbs).

That, based on estimations, means he would have created about 40.6 runs (it's actually probably higher because the shorthand estimation I did does not take into account stolen bases). That's about .196 runs created per plate appearance. Stubbs is about 27.2 runs created or .154 runs created per plate appearance. Over 500 plate appearances at this level, Heisey would create about 21 more runs as an estimate (98/77). Is Stubbs worth 21 more runs saved than Heisey? I wouldn't think so, but I guess that becomes the question.

SMcGavin
06-01-2009, 01:30 PM
How good is Heisey defensively?

fearofpopvol1
06-01-2009, 01:32 PM
How good is Heisey defensively?

From everything I've read, he's considered above average. Not as good as Stubbs, but definitely above average.

Brutus...great analysis. Thanks for posting that!!

OnBaseMachine
06-01-2009, 01:33 PM
How good is Heisey defensively?

From what I've heard and read, Heisey is an above average defender in CF.

HokieRed
06-01-2009, 01:39 PM
Yes, but the 1 thing you're not addressing (and I realize this is an "if"), but if everything is okay with Votto...he realistically may be moved to LF to make room for Alonso. What happens then? Frazier could at least go over to 3B if LF is not an option. Heisey won't be able to.

We might get to a situation where we have Stubbs, Heisey, Frazier, Votto, EE, and Alonso to play 4 positions: LF, CF, 3B, 1B. Then we'd be able to move two to get other things.

Scrap Irony
06-01-2009, 01:41 PM
Heisey is nearly Gold Glove, if not Gold Glove. Stubbs is just a bit better. (He also has a better arm and slightly better range.)

Joseph
06-01-2009, 01:42 PM
Stubbs.

lollipopcurve
06-01-2009, 03:57 PM
Put them both at Louisville and you'll have abetter idea.

For the record, from 2008:

At Sarasota
Heisey .287/.381/.438
Stubbs .261/.366/.406

At Chattanooga
Heisey .316/.341/.494
Stubbs .315/.400/.402

Redman15
06-01-2009, 07:21 PM
Heisey gets my vote.
Southern League POW May 25th - 31st.
Chris Heisey, Carolina
.555 (15-27), 7 R, 1 2B, 1 3B, 2 HR, 9 RBI, 2 BB, 1 SO, 2 SB
Reds prospect Chris Heisey collected three hits four times this week and has recorded at least one hit in his last nine games. His two homers came in consecutive contests May 29 and 30. Heisey raised his average 20 points this week, and now leads the league in batting average, hits, slugging percentage, extra-base hits and runs scored.

GIDP
06-01-2009, 07:25 PM
Stubbs imo. Its decently close though.

Rojo
06-01-2009, 09:26 PM
Stubbs anemic slugging has always made me sceptical.

If he's a true plus centerifeld, it's Heisey.

fearofpopvol1
06-02-2009, 05:42 PM
Seems like most people think Stubbs is better. I don't know. I know CF is a an elite defensive position and Stubbs is elite there, but I think I'd take a slight drop in defense if the offense made up for it. And it looks like Heisey is that guy.

Scrap Irony
06-02-2009, 07:17 PM
Depends on how slight the defensive drop and how big a bump the offense might bring. I do know Stubbs has shown a propensity for playing well in AAA and Heisey doesn't have that.

corkedbat
06-02-2009, 11:58 PM
Depends on how slight the defensive drop and how big a bump the offense might bring. I do know Stubbs has shown a propensity for playing well in AAA and Heisey doesn't have that.

Pretty much my feelings too. For now, I give the slightedge to Stubbs becuase of his defense and a pretty solid season in AAA. I'm not saying Heisey can't or won't do it in AAA by any means, but I'd like to see 200-250 AAA ABs against some veterans who have picked up tricks in the majors in addition to top prospects, before I move him ahead of Drew.

We were all singing Dorns praises last year for his AA performance and now look at him. Let's see som AA performance from Chirs before we make any judgements, but let's see it soon. Move him up now and let he and Stubbs take turns in CF. I won't hurt either of them to spend some time in LF & RF. best they get used to the routes in Louisvulle than the GAB or other major league park. They need to be versatile.

Mario-Rijo
06-03-2009, 12:48 AM
Right now as in up to this point? Heisey easy, of course I tend to look at things a little bit differently than most. Going forward? Probably (hopefully) Stubbs if he continues to make the neccessary adjustments going forward, if he doesn't give me Heisey.

OnBaseMachine
06-07-2009, 02:10 PM
Baseball Prospectus has a Q&A up with Drew Stubbs. Sorry, I can only post the free part...

Prospectus Q&A
Drew Stubbs
by David Laurila

Cincinnati's center fielder of the future is nearly ready. Drew Stubbs may not be putting up the power numbers many expected of him when he was taken eighth overall in the 2006 draft, but the 24-year-old University of Texas product still promises to upgrade Dusty Baker's lineup when he arrives in the Queen City. Not only is Stubbs widely regarded as the best defensive outfielder in the minor leagues, he brings to the table a component that has been sorely lacking at the top of the Reds' batting order: an ability to get on base. An academic All-American at the University of Texas, Stubbs came into the weekend hitting .290/.386/.426 with 18 stolen bases for Triple-A Louisville.

---

David Laurila: I first interviewed you in spring training of 2007. How much have you changed since that time?

Drew Stubbs: The past, I guess, year and a half has given me a chance to gain more experience, including games at the upper levels of the minor leagues. I've played with some older guys who have been around for awhile, and you can just learn a lot by being around them. You can pick up some tricks of the trade, learning a lot of the little things about the game, and I think I've been able to do that. It has helped me in my path to getting to the big leagues.

DL: Is there any one part of your game that you feel has developed more than the rest?

Here's the link for those of you who subscribe to BP:

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9019

bucksfan2
06-08-2009, 10:18 AM
Stubbs, and I don't think its as close as many think.

There is a reason why Stubbs was drafted as high as he was, and there is a reason he has continued to move through the minors even when his numbers didn't "look good". IMO he has two things that make him an every day CF in the bigs. His ability to play GG defense as well as his good OBP. He may never hit as well as many had hoped and his slugging may not be as good as many expect it to be but if he can continue to play great defense and find his way to 1b then he will be a good everyday CF.

IMO Stubbs is developing the exact same way WK had envisioned him when he drafted him. His path to the majors has been slower than many college draftees, but I think the FO knew that.

Heisey's issue becomes whether he can surpass Stubbs. Can his offensive numbers overcome Stubbs better defense and similar OBP? It becomes especially more difficult if the Reds think Stubbs power will develop as he matures and gets stronger.

Brutus
06-08-2009, 02:04 PM
Stubbs, and I don't think its as close as many think.

There is a reason why Stubbs was drafted as high as he was, and there is a reason he has continued to move through the minors even when his numbers didn't "look good". IMO he has two things that make him an every day CF in the bigs. His ability to play GG defense as well as his good OBP. He may never hit as well as many had hoped and his slugging may not be as good as many expect it to be but if he can continue to play great defense and find his way to 1b then he will be a good everyday CF.

IMO Stubbs is developing the exact same way WK had envisioned him when he drafted him. His path to the majors has been slower than many college draftees, but I think the FO knew that.

Heisey's issue becomes whether he can surpass Stubbs. Can his offensive numbers overcome Stubbs better defense and similar OBP? It becomes especially more difficult if the Reds think Stubbs power will develop as he matures and gets stronger.

You make some very good points. Thing is, Heisey is doing all those things Stubbs is doing (getting on base, showing great defense) but he's doing it while already showing some of the power that the Reds think Stubbs might develop.

Perhaps Stubbs' ceiling is higher. But right now, I think Heisey is the more well-rounded player.

Mario-Rijo
06-08-2009, 02:08 PM
You make some very good points. Thing is, Heisey is doing all those things Stubbs is doing (getting on base, showing great defense) but he's doing it while already showing some of the power that the Reds think Stubbs might develop.

Perhaps Stubbs' ceiling is higher. But right now, I think Heisey is the more well-rounded player.

No question and all other things being equal Heisey's advantage at the plate is worth a little more than Stubb's advantage in the field.

bucksfan2
06-08-2009, 03:22 PM
No question and all other things being equal Heisey's advantage at the plate is worth a little more than Stubb's advantage in the field.

What do you consider being equal?

*Disclaimer* I have not seen either of these two players play.

By looking at the stats Heisey's only clear offensive advantages are BA and SLG. IMO what is very impressive about Stubbs is that his OBP has always been 80-100 points higher than his BA. Good plate zone judgment doesn't slump. When you are going bad you are still able to draw walks. Stubbs has always been able to find his way to first base, at a good clip. It also looks like Stubbs has an advantage on the base paths but by how much is anybody's idea.

I agree with Brutus that right now Stubbs has a higher ceiling but Heisey is a better all around player. But I think the question really is among all factors, where is the difference, and how much do you value that difference. How much of a difference is there between an above average CF and a great CF? How much of difference is there between a Minor OBP of .369 and .378. Are both leadoff hitters? Can Heisey player a corner position?

The Reds actually have a bad problem right now. It appears if they have two legit CF's in their system at AAA and AA ball. A good question to ask is the only reason Stubbs is one level head of Heisey draft position?

Brutus
06-08-2009, 03:37 PM
What do you consider being equal?

*Disclaimer* I have not seen either of these two players play.

By looking at the stats Heisey's only clear offensive advantages are BA and SLG. IMO what is very impressive about Stubbs is that his OBP has always been 80-100 points higher than his BA. Good plate zone judgment doesn't slump. When you are going bad you are still able to draw walks. Stubbs has always been able to find his way to first base, at a good clip. It also looks like Stubbs has an advantage on the base paths but by how much is anybody's idea.

I agree with Brutus that right now Stubbs has a higher ceiling but Heisey is a better all around player. But I think the question really is among all factors, where is the difference, and how much do you value that difference. How much of a difference is there between an above average CF and a great CF? How much of difference is there between a Minor OBP of .369 and .378. Are both leadoff hitters? Can Heisey player a corner position?

The Reds actually have a bad problem right now. It appears if they have two legit CF's in their system at AAA and AA ball. A good question to ask is the only reason Stubbs is one level head of Heisey draft position?

I posted earlier in this thread, that if you use Minor League Equivalencies to bring Stubbs & Heisey to the same level, Heisey's stats equal about 21 more runs created spread out over 500 plate appearances. That means, if you want to judge value of difference, the question becomes how many more runs saved over that period of time do you think Stubbs would save over Heisey in the outfield? If in fact Heisey is also as good with the glove as they say, my hunch would be you're not looking at more than 5-10 runs over the course of a season - which still leaves Heisey more valuable at this juncture.

Of course, that does not take into account what these two players might be doing five years from now. But I guess that's where the hard part comes in - weighing production against potential.

dougdirt
06-08-2009, 03:43 PM
I posted earlier in this thread, that if you use Minor League Equivalencies to bring Stubbs & Heisey to the same level, Heisey's stats equal about 21 more runs created spread out over 500 plate appearances. That means, if you want to judge value of difference, the question becomes how many more runs saved over that period of time do you think Stubbs would save over Heisey in the outfield? If in fact Heisey is also as good with the glove as they say, my hunch would be you're not looking at more than 5-10 runs over the course of a season - which still leaves Heisey more valuable at this juncture.

Of course, that does not take into account what these two players might be doing five years from now. But I guess that's where the hard part comes in - weighing production against potential.

Of course MLE's are just guessed and often aren't even close to being what actually happens. I mean look at how much Danny Dorn has struggled after OPSing .915 in AA last season.

Its going to eventually work itself out.

Brutus
06-08-2009, 03:46 PM
Of course MLE's are just guessed and often aren't even close to being what actually happens. I mean look at how much Danny Dorn has struggled after OPSing .915 in AA last season.

Its going to eventually work itself out.

I'm not trying to suggest they're the holy grail. However, Heisey is outperforming where Stubbs was at AA and he's outperforming him now. I'm just trying to do the best I can at fairly comparing the two. MLE's aren't perfect, but they have a fairly high rate of successful translation. Again, I am not trying to suggest they're fail proof. I'm merely trying to most fairly compare their stat lines.

bucksfan2
06-08-2009, 03:48 PM
I posted earlier in this thread, that if you use Minor League Equivalencies to bring Stubbs & Heisey to the same level, Heisey's stats equal about 21 more runs created spread out over 500 plate appearances. That means, if you want to judge value of difference, the question becomes how many more runs saved over that period of time do you think Stubbs would save over Heisey in the outfield? If in fact Heisey is also as good with the glove as they say, my hunch would be you're not looking at more than 5-10 runs over the course of a season - which still leaves Heisey more valuable at this juncture.

Of course, that does not take into account what these two players might be doing five years from now. But I guess that's where the hard part comes in - weighing production against potential.

Bingo. I couldn't agree with you more on the bolded part. Minor league stats are one thing, how they translate into MLB stats are a whole different animal.

dougdirt
06-08-2009, 04:04 PM
I'm not trying to suggest they're the holy grail. However, Heisey is outperforming where Stubbs was at AA and he's outperforming him now. I'm just trying to do the best I can at fairly comparing the two. MLE's aren't perfect, but they have a fairly high rate of successful translation. Again, I am not trying to suggest they're fail proof. I'm merely trying to most fairly compare their stat lines.

Of course Heisey is also older than Stubbs in AA too. Its just too much of a what if game for MLE's. Some guys transition well to different levels of skill than others. I don't have much doubt in my mind that Heisey can't hit in AAA yesterday because he has a strong skillset of plate discipline and contact that generally translates well from level to level. With that said, whats going on with Heisey in June. 2 walks and 8 strikeouts? Its been the opposite of that for the rest of the year.

Mario-Rijo
06-08-2009, 04:25 PM
Of course Heisey is also older than Stubbs in AA too. Its just too much of a what if game for MLE's. Some guys transition well to different levels of skill than others. I don't have much doubt in my mind that Heisey can't hit in AAA yesterday because he has a strong skillset of plate discipline and contact that generally translates well from level to level. With that said, whats going on with Heisey in June. 2 walks and 8 strikeouts? Its been the opposite of that for the rest of the year.

He's probably tired from running the bases so much. ;)

OnBaseMachine
06-08-2009, 04:39 PM
I love the problem of having too many good players at one position. It's a great problem to have.

You have Drew Stubbs, who Baseball Prospectus says may be the best defensive outfielder in all of the minor leagues. He has a good eye at the plate and runs the bases very well. The only knock is he doesn't hit a lot of homers yet, though he's hitting plenty of doubles. Then you have Chris Heisey, who isn't quite the defender that Stubbs is, but is a solid defender and is arguably a better all around hitter right now.

Then there's Yorman Rodriguez, whose tools draw comparisons to superstars like Eric Davis, Cesar Cedeno, and Carlos Beltran, though he's probably at least five years away from the majors, assuming he pans out.

Let's hope the Reds continue adding talent and depth to the organization and further contributing to this problem.

BuckeyeRedleg
06-09-2009, 11:30 AM
Of course Heisey is also older than Stubbs in AA too.

I think Stubbs is 2 months older than Heisey. Not that it makes much difference. They came out the same year and are roughly the same age.

Stubbs: 10-4-84
Heisey: 12-14-84

*edit: Forget it.....I see what you are talking about now. Heisey is a year older than Stubbs was when he was in AA. My bad.

Mario-Rijo
06-09-2009, 12:53 PM
So Stubbs ceiling is maybe a better version of Mike Cameron but still a ways off? Heisey maybe a Mark Kotsay type but perhaps almost there? That's about how I see it.

fearofpopvol1
06-09-2009, 01:18 PM
So Stubbs ceiling is maybe a better version of Mike Cameron but still a ways off? Heisey maybe a Mark Kotsay type but perhaps almost there? That's about how I see it.

I don't get the Stubbs/Cameron comparison other than the glove aspect. Stubbs will never have the power of Mike Cameron nor will he hit as many home runs.

bucksfan2
06-09-2009, 01:19 PM
So Stubbs ceiling is maybe a better version of Mike Cameron but still a ways off? Heisey maybe a Mark Kotsay type but perhaps almost there? That's about how I see it.

Does Heisey have a wife who looks like Kotsay's? If so then I would rank him higher than Stubbs. :p:

dougdirt
06-09-2009, 01:36 PM
I don't get the Stubbs/Cameron comparison other than the glove aspect. Stubbs will never have the power of Mike Cameron nor will he hit as many home runs.
There is the glove, lots of walks and for a while, lots of strikeouts. There is also the raw power aspect of things, where the two players rate similarly. Cameron however uses his power in games better than Stubbs does. Drew has the power though to be a 25 HR guy. He just needs to figure out how to use his power better. That sometimes comes with age. With a guy like Stubbs I think it comes down to knowing when he should swing for the fences and when he shouldn't. Right now, he isn't really swinging for them.

dougdirt
06-09-2009, 01:37 PM
Does Heisey have a wife who looks like Kotsay's? If so then I would rank him higher than Stubbs. :p:

Why don't I know who Mark Kotsay is married to?

camisadelgolf
06-09-2009, 01:44 PM
For a good time, google Jamie Kotsay.

WebScorpion
06-13-2009, 06:33 PM
I'm hoping to see Stubbs manning CF in Cincinnati next year and never seeing another center fielder at the position for years to come. If this team is truly being built on pitching and defense, that's what you'll see. Heisey is a great center fielder, but he will never be a better defender than Stubbs. If Stubbs continues to get on base and play elite defense, you plug him in at the top of the lineup and never look back. Of course, with the additional power, there's nothing to keep Heisey from being an elite fielding left fielder. To me, the choices are really 3rd base (Frazier or EE), 1st base (Alonso or Votto), and LF (Votto, Frazier, or Heisey).

reds44
06-13-2009, 06:40 PM
Stubbs. Better tools, and they are the same age and Stubbs is at a higher level.

mth123
06-13-2009, 06:48 PM
I like Home Runs so I'll take Heisey. So far, rumors or Stubbs power are greatly exaggerated.

I do like Stubbs though and think the Reds are in a good position. With the rest of the division failing as much as the Reds right now, opportunity is knocking and one of these guys probably needs to go as a major piece to a deal. The best part is if the Reds choose to keep the wrong one, either could probably still platoon with Dickerson and provide the Reds with decent production on offense and defense for little dollars over the next several years. I'd be inclined to deal the one that other teams most covet (and provides the best return) while moving forward with the other - all the while clutching my platoon security blanket in case my keeper disappoints.

fearofpopvol1
06-13-2009, 08:18 PM
There is the glove, lots of walks and for a while, lots of strikeouts. There is also the raw power aspect of things, where the two players rate similarly. Cameron however uses his power in games better than Stubbs does. Drew has the power though to be a 25 HR guy. He just needs to figure out how to use his power better. That sometimes comes with age. With a guy like Stubbs I think it comes down to knowing when he should swing for the fences and when he shouldn't. Right now, he isn't really swinging for them.

I don't think Stubbs' power will ever resemble 25 HR power. His build is nothing like Cameron's either. I like Stubbs...but I would be very surprised if ever has a season where he hits more than 20HRs.

RedEye
06-13-2009, 08:26 PM
I don't think Stubbs' power will ever resemble 25 HR power. His build is nothing like Cameron's either. I like Stubbs...but I would be very surprised if ever has a season where he hits more than 20HRs.

I'm wondering whether Steve Finley might be a better comparison for Stubbs than Cameron. Finley was always a great CF and had a lot of speed early in his career. Later, I think in his 30s, he started to hit more for power. Does that sound right or am I making that up?

TheNext44
06-13-2009, 08:36 PM
I'm wondering whether Steve Finley might be a better comparison for Stubbs than Cameron. Finley was always a great CF and had a lot of speed early in his career. Later, I think in his 30s, he started to hit more for power. Does that sound right or am I making that up?

You got it right.

I don't think he ever showed up on any list, but he did jump from 10 HR's every year to 30...at the age of 30...in 1996. Raises some suspicions.

Stubbs shouldn't need help, he's 2 inches taller and 25 pounds heavier than Finley.

redsfandan
06-13-2009, 11:12 PM
I like Home Runs so I'll take Heisey. So far, rumors or Stubbs power are greatly exaggerated.

I do like Stubbs though and think the Reds are in a good position. With the rest of the division failing as much as the Reds right now, opportunity is knocking and one of these guys probably needs to go as a major piece to a deal. The best part is if the Reds choose to keep the wrong one, either could probably still platoon with Dickerson and provide the Reds with decent production on offense and defense for little dollars over the next several years. I'd be inclined to deal the one that other teams most covet (and provides the best return) while moving forward with the other - all the while clutching my platoon security blanket in case my keeper disappoints.
I agree 1000%. There aren't enough spots for all these players. I'd rather deal 2-3 of these guys for either 1 better prospect or a prospect that can fill a bigger need next year on the Reds (ss).

OnBaseMachine
06-24-2009, 01:05 PM
I heard a rumor that Heisey will be promoted to Louisville on Saturday. Nothing is final at this point so take it FWIW.

Homer Bailey
06-24-2009, 01:24 PM
I heard a rumor that Heisey will be promoted to Louisville on Saturday. Nothing is final at this point so take it FWIW.

Stubs to MLB, WT to the DL, McDonald DFA?

BuckeyeRedleg
06-24-2009, 01:49 PM
Stubs to MLB, WT to the DL, McDonald DFA?

I find it hilarious that whenever we move awful players, it is to the D.L. Seems to give them a built-in excuse for being so bad. Lame.

Also, someone help me out here. What purpose does Darnell McDonald serve anywhere in this organization?

bubbachunk
06-24-2009, 02:20 PM
Stubs to MLB, WT to the DL, McDonald DFA?

That would be ideal but I just cant trust it to happen yet.

GIDP
06-24-2009, 03:59 PM
Stubs to MLB, WT to the DL, McDonald DFA?

I could see Mcdonald being cut loose but I really doubt anyone goes to the MLB level.

BRM
06-24-2009, 04:00 PM
I could see Mcdonald being cut loose but I really doubt anyone goes to the MLB level.

Same here. Heisey would likely get time at a corner spot if he's called up.

GIDP
06-24-2009, 04:37 PM
Same here. Heisey would likely get time at a corner spot if he's called up.

No reason in not playing both of them in CF and RF and even time at left even though I certainly would hate for either of them to be brought up and get a day in LF in the majors.

OesterPoster
06-24-2009, 04:55 PM
I heard a rumor that Heisey will be promoted to Louisville on Saturday. Nothing is final at this point so take it FWIW.

I'd like to believe it, but I'm skeptical. Heisey's wife admitted to knowing when he'd be promoted one level in the past, and even she wasn't allowed to tell him since an injury would prevent it.

RedEye
06-27-2009, 01:34 PM
You got it right.

I don't think he ever showed up on any list, but he did jump from 10 HR's every year to 30...at the age of 30...in 1996. Raises some suspicions.

Stubbs shouldn't need help, he's 2 inches taller and 25 pounds heavier than Finley.

I wasn't trying to call out Finley on drug use--just trying to make a comparison with Stubbs. It seems to me completely reasonable to think that Stubbs might not have power at first but then develop it as he matures as a hitter in MLB. Until then, he'll still be very useful on the bases and in the outfield.

Benihana
06-27-2009, 01:37 PM
I heard a rumor that Heisey will be promoted to Louisville on Saturday. Nothing is final at this point so take it FWIW.

Good call OBM.

It will be interesting to see these two side by side in Louisville. Maybe this question will get answered after all.

dougdirt
06-27-2009, 01:51 PM
Good call OBM.

It will be interesting to see these two side by side in Louisville. Maybe this question will get answered after all.

What question?

Benihana
06-27-2009, 01:55 PM
What question?

The title of this thread.

dougdirt
06-27-2009, 02:03 PM
The title of this thread.

I am an idiot.

With that said, I don't think anything that happens over the next two months is going to provide an answer. Player A may be a better player than Player B right now, but that doesn't always make them a better prospect.

Benihana
06-27-2009, 04:54 PM
I am an idiot.

With that said, I don't think anything that happens over the next two months is going to provide an answer. Player A may be a better player than Player B right now, but that doesn't always make them a better prospect.

Heisey has outperformed Stubbs offensively at every single level of their professional careers. While I'm not yet ready to proclaim Heisey the better prospect, I will if he outperforms Stubbs in Louisville the rest of the season.

About seven or eight years ago, the Cubs had two pitchers who were big prospects that the Reds were particularly interested in acquiring in exchange for Pokey Reese. While both went on to productive major league careers, the one who wasn't as highly rated and was considered readily available (Carlos Zambrano) ended up outperforming the much more highly rated one who was also considered untouchable (Juan Cruz).

A similar thing happened two decades earlier in Cincinnati, with Kurt Stillwell and a guy named Barry Larkin. We may or may not be witnessing the same phenomenon with Stubbs and Heisey, but at least now we have an equal platform to compare them. When it comes time, I just hope the Reds make the right choice between the two- much like they did 20 years ago with Larkin over Stillwell.

dougdirt
06-27-2009, 05:28 PM
Heisey has outperformed Stubbs offensively at every single level of their professional careers. While I'm not yet ready to proclaim Heisey the better prospect, I will if he outperforms Stubbs in Louisville the rest of the season.

About seven or eight years ago, the Cubs had two pitchers who were big prospects that the Reds were particularly interested in acquiring in exchange for Pokey Reese. While both went on to productive major league careers, the one who wasn't as highly rated and was considered readily available (Carlos Zambrano) ended up outperforming the much more highly rated one who was also considered untouchable (Juan Cruz).

A similar thing happened two decades earlier in Cincinnati, with Kurt Stillwell and a guy named Barry Larkin. We may or may not be witnessing the same phenomenon with Stubbs and Heisey, but at least now we have an equal platform to compare them. When it comes time, I just hope the Reds make the right choice between the two- much like they did 20 years ago with Larkin over Stillwell.
Larkin/Stillwell was incredibly easy. The numbers were completely and entirely skewed in one direction and the tools were very similar (both reportedly top end tools). Thats not really what we are seeing with Heisey/Stubbs. The overall production has been pretty similar while one guy has the better tools while being ever so slightly outperformed.

Benihana
06-27-2009, 05:35 PM
Larkin/Stillwell was incredibly easy. The numbers were completely and entirely skewed in one direction and the tools were very similar (both reportedly top end tools). Thats not really what we are seeing with Heisey/Stubbs. The overall production has been pretty similar while one guy has the better tools while being ever so slightly outperformed.

Doug, were you alive when the Larkin/Stillwell decision was made? At the time, it was NOT incredibly easy.


The numbers were completely and entirely skewed in one direction.

In 1987, the first full season in the majors for both and the final season before Stillwell was traded, the numbers were as follows:

Larkin, age 23, put up a .677 OPS in Cincinnati in 439 AB.
Stillwell, age 22, put up a .691 OPS in Cincinnati in 395 AB.

Those sound "completely and entirely skewed in one direction" to me. :rolleyes:

lollipopcurve
06-27-2009, 05:57 PM
I don't think Heisey/Stubbs is necessarily either/or. If both players continue to improve, there is no reason they both can't end up starting in Cincy. The organization should not feel backed into a trade corner over a redundancy in this case -- get value, or don't deal.

Larkin/Stillwell was not an easy call. If I recall correctly, the organization was leaning towards keeping Stillwell at SS and moving Larkin to 2B. But Larkin made it clear he wanted to be a SS. Fortunately, the Reds saw their way through to managing that situation well. While Heisey/Stubbs is an important talent glut the team must sort out, it does not seem to present as critical a decision as the SS one was back in the late 80s. Let's hope it's handled as deftly.

Benihana
06-27-2009, 06:08 PM
I don't think Heisey/Stubbs is necessarily either/or. If both players continue to improve, there is no reason they both can't end up starting in Cincy. The organization should not feel backed into a trade corner over a redundancy in this case -- get value, or don't deal.

Larkin/Stillwell was not an easy call. If I recall correctly, the organization was leaning towards keeping Stillwell at SS and moving Larkin to 2B. But Larkin made it clear he wanted to be a SS. Fortunately, the Reds saw their way through to managing that situation well. While Heisey/Stubbs is an important talent glut the team must sort out, it does not seem to present as critical a decision as the SS one was back in the late 80s. Let's hope it's handled as deftly.

I honestly don't believe either Heisey or Stubbs (or Dickerson) will ever hit enough to be a starting LF on a legitimate team. The Reds are going to have to make a choice at some point, and now might be the time when they can potentially get the most value if they make a move. But like I said, I just hope they make the right decision.

HokieRed
06-27-2009, 11:35 PM
Problem for both Heisey and Stubbs as far as CF goes may be getting the position away from CD. Don't look now, but his OPS is close to .800 after tonight.

Tony Cloninger
06-27-2009, 11:44 PM
Why can't they just be happy with a solid 4th OF that does not cost much?

If Votto goes to LF and Yonder plays 1st that is.

HokieRed
06-27-2009, 11:48 PM
Why can't they just be happy with a solid 4th OF that does not cost much?

If Votto goes to LF and Yonder plays 1st that is.

Some interesting decisions to be made about OF next spring, even if we add nobody. If Yonder is ready to go, then potential OFers could include Votto, Bruce, Dickerson, Nix, Gomes, Stubbs, Heisey, Dorn--not to mention the still under contract WT.

Plus Plus
06-27-2009, 11:56 PM
Some interesting decisions to be made about OF next spring, even if we add nobody. If Yonder is ready to go, then potential OFers could include Votto, Bruce, Dickerson, Nix, Gomes, Stubbs, Heisey, Dorn--not to mention the still under contract WT.

If Taveras, assuming he continues this level of production, is even in the equation next spring then I am moving to Canada and becoming a Blue Jay's fan.

He might be the worst ballplayer that I have ever had the misfortune of seeing play, and is actually a factor that keeps me AWAY from going to games at GABP. Watching someone with the baseball skills of the monkey from "Most Valuable Primate" is not entertaining.

fearofpopvol1
06-28-2009, 03:31 AM
I think the Reds will hold on to Stubbs over Heisey pretty much no matter what. He was drafted highly and was paid more money.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 03:46 AM
Doug, were you alive when the Larkin/Stillwell decision was made? At the time, it was NOT incredibly easy.

In 1987, the first full season in the majors for both and the final season before Stillwell was traded, the numbers were as follows:

Larkin, age 23, put up a .677 OPS in Cincinnati in 439 AB.
Stillwell, age 22, put up a .691 OPS in Cincinnati in 395 AB.

Those sound "completely and entirely skewed in one direction" to me. :rolleyes:

Kurt Stillwell and Barry Larkin may have put up similar numbers at the MLB level, but in the minors it wasn't even close.

Stillwell was a guy who had this for a minor league track record.


Age Level AB H 2B 3B HR AVG OBP SLG OPS
18 Rk 250 81 10 1 2 .324 .418 .396 814
19 A 382 96 15 1 4 .251 .365 .327 692
20 AAA 182 48 7 4 1 .264 .340 .363 703
21 AAA 30 7 0 0 0 .233 .281 .233 514

Numbers declining every step of the way and never showed anything resembling power at all. Sure, he was young for his levels, but the guy was the epitome of a light hitter.

Larkin on the flip side of things had this in his minor league track record.


Age Level AB H 2B 3B HR AVG OBP SLG OPS
21 AA 255 68 13 2 1 .267 .331 .345 676
22 AAA 413 136 31 10 10 .329 .373 .525 898


Struggled to adjust to wooden bats in his debut at AA. First full season in the minors he tore through AAA like it was his job with power, average and strong plate discipline (31 walks, 43 K's). I didn't have to be alive (which I was) to look at those two guys and tell who was the easy decision between the two.

Both had 'the tools'. One guy had baseball skills and to be honest, it was fairly easy to see who that guy was by looking at their bodies of work. One guy killed AAA and one guy OPS'd sub .700 there.

While fans may not have known which one was better (because really, all the information they had to go on is what was told to them. No internet, no way to track MILB stats, nothing), the Reds really should have been able to and so should other teams who had access to the numbers and scouting reports.

Benihana
06-28-2009, 01:15 PM
Kurt Stillwell and Barry Larkin may have put up similar numbers at the MLB level, but in the minors it wasn't even close.

Stillwell was a guy who had this for a minor league track record.


Age Level AB H 2B 3B HR AVG OBP SLG OPS
18 Rk 250 81 10 1 2 .324 .418 .396 814
19 A 382 96 15 1 4 .251 .365 .327 692
20 AAA 182 48 7 4 1 .264 .340 .363 703
21 AAA 30 7 0 0 0 .233 .281 .233 514

Numbers declining every step of the way and never showed anything resembling power at all. Sure, he was young for his levels, but the guy was the epitome of a light hitter.

Numbers declining every step of the way? You're referring to 30 ABs he had in AAA at age 21 after skipping two levels. Please Doug, I thought you were better than that. Do you think that may have been a case of overpromotion given that he was the second pick of the draft? For someone who is constantly defending Homer Bailey, Drew Stubbs and Devin Mesoraco, you sure can be hypocritical at times.


Larkin on the flip side of things had this in his minor league track record.


Age Level AB H 2B 3B HR AVG OBP SLG OPS
21 AA 255 68 13 2 1 .267 .331 .345 676
22 AAA 413 136 31 10 10 .329 .373 .525 898


Struggled to adjust to wooden bats in his debut at AA. First full season in the minors he tore through AAA like it was his job with power, average and strong plate discipline (31 walks, 43 K's). I didn't have to be alive (which I was) to look at those two guys and tell who was the easy decision between the two.

Both had 'the tools'. One guy had baseball skills and to be honest, it was fairly easy to see who that guy was by looking at their bodies of work. One guy killed AAA and one guy OPS'd sub .700 there.

While fans may not have known which one was better (because really, all the information they had to go on is what was told to them. No internet, no way to track MILB stats, nothing), the Reds really should have been able to and so should other teams who had access to the numbers and scouting reports.

Once again you're ignoring what was at the time the most relevant line of stats- their production at the major league level at the same time (while Stillwell was a year younger.) This argument is pointless, anyone who was following the Reds at the time knows that it was not a clear-cut, one-sided decision. Please stick to topics that you are personally more familiar with.

membengal
06-28-2009, 02:09 PM
Echo benihana and others who saw that unfold. It was FAR from clear who the Reds should keep, and there was heated debete within and without the organization.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 02:24 PM
Numbers declining every step of the way? You're referring to 30 ABs he had in AAA at age 21 after skipping two levels. Please Doug, I thought you were better than that. Do you think that may have been a case of overpromotion given that he was the second pick of the draft? For someone who is constantly defending Homer Bailey, Drew Stubbs and Devin Mesoraco, you sure can be hypocritical at times.

Bailey and Stubbs had performance numbers on their side at different stages. Mesoraco has tools, not much performance but has shown decent secondary skills. Its not hypocritical, Stillwell went from an 800 OPS in rookie ball to a 700 OPS at the next two levels he was at. Sure, his third stop was 10 points better than his second stop. It was still much lower than the first stop and well, not anything impressive in terms of the stat category (when compared to Larkin for example).



Once again you're ignoring what was at the time the most relevant line of stats- their production at the major league level at the same time (while Stillwell was a year younger.) This argument is pointless, anyone who was following the Reds at the time knows that it was not a clear-cut, one-sided decision. Please stick to topics that you are personally more familiar with.
Not really ignoring anything. Stillwell and Larkin shouldn't have been a close decision and I don't have to be 'personally' familiar with it to know that. Larkin showed power and other secondary skills in the minor leagues while having similar tools. Stillwell showed an abillity to draw a walk in the minors, but not other real offensive skills with similar tools. Why is it not an easy choice to take the guy with just as good tools, who also produced over the guy with the same type of tools, but very little production and offensively only had one skill (drawing a walk)? The fact that I wasn't old enough at the time to be familiar with it doesn't change that fact that one guy had tools that he used as skills (Larkin - Defense, power, hittability, discipline) and one guy had tools that he couldn't really use as skills (Stillwell - Defense and discipline).

mth123
06-28-2009, 02:37 PM
Bailey and Stubbs had performance numbers on their side at different stages. Mesoraco has tools, not much performance but has shown decent secondary skills. Its not hypocritical, Stillwell went from an 800 OPS in rookie ball to a 700 OPS at the next two levels he was at. Sure, his third stop was 10 points better than his second stop. It was still much lower than the first stop and well, not anything impressive in terms of the stat category (when compared to Larkin for example).


Not really ignoring anything. Stillwell and Larkin shouldn't have been a close decision and I don't have to be 'personally' familiar with it to know that. Larkin showed power and other secondary skills in the minor leagues while having similar tools. Stillwell showed an abillity to draw a walk in the minors, but not other real offensive skills with similar tools. Why is it not an easy choice to take the guy with just as good tools, who also produced over the guy with the same type of tools, but very little production and offensively only had one skill (drawing a walk)? The fact that I wasn't old enough at the time to be familiar with it doesn't change that fact that one guy had tools that he used as skills (Larkin - Defense, power, hittability, discipline) and one guy had tools that he couldn't really use as skills (Stillwell - Defense and discipline).

Back in those days Stillwell was thought to be the prototypical steady defensive SS. Despite Larkin's offense, few considered back then that offensive numbers mattered much for a SS. At best they were decent number 7 hitters or an occassional lead-off guy if they stole bases. SS was about defensive steadiness and gluing the IF together and it wasn't worth risking it for a slight offensive upgrade. It just wasn't in anyone's thought process at the time that a guy could be as valuable an offensive player as Larkin turned out to be and stay at SS. There were a few who recognized it, but it wasn't so obvious back then.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 02:51 PM
Back in those days Stillwell was thought to be the prototypical steady defensive SS. Despite Larkin's offense, few considered back then that offensive numbers mattered much for a SS. At best they were decent number 7 hitters or an occassional lead-off guy if they stole bases. SS was about defensive steadiness and gluing the IF together and it wasn't worth risking it for a slight offensive upgrade. It just wasn't in anyone's thought process at the time that a guy could be as valuable an offensive player as Larkin turned out to be and stay at SS. There were a few who recognized it, but it wasn't so obvious back then.

Larkin's defense was considered prototypical then also no? I believe they were considered that and if so, even dumb GM's should have been able to figure out good hitting SS with good glove better than bad hitting SS with good glove.

mth123
06-28-2009, 03:05 PM
Larkin's defense was considered prototypical then also no? I believe they were considered that and if so, even dumb GM's should have been able to figure out good hitting SS with good glove better than bad hitting SS with good glove.

Not like Stillwell's. Larkin's great defense took a lot of people by surprise. The Red's wanted Larkin to move to second because they preferred Stillwell's "prototypical steadiness" to Larkin's athleticism at SS (I think back then the super athlete types were unfairly stereotyped as "erratic" by many). Larkin refused and the Reds thought enough of him to not hold it against him. They made the right choice but no one expected the offensive or defensive player that Larkin became. Once Stillwell was gone and people got to see Larkin every day, people started to realize what they Reds had. But, before then, I remember that those who preferred Larkin were in the clear minority and mostly based it on his Cincinnati upbringing and being Byron Larkin's brother.

I think you may be right though that if the internet and the information that is available now, would have been available in such abundance back then, it may have not been such a close decision, but we'll never know.

icehole3
06-28-2009, 03:25 PM
I have to agree with these guys Doug, Stillwell was right there with Larkin in the field and even though Larkin displayed more power it wasnt enough to move him in front of Stillwell who seemed to have some intangibles that the Reds liked they were both part of the crown jewels, as I remember it, I wouldve been happy either way with who got traded Stillwell was that good. IMO Stillwell lost some confidence because the Reds traded him and Larkin gained confidence.

HokieRed
06-28-2009, 03:46 PM
As I remember the decision, it was very much a matter of Larkin's upside over what was rightly perceived about Stilwell--that he had already become about as good a player as he was likely to be.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 03:56 PM
I have to agree with these guys Doug, Stillwell was right there with Larkin in the field and even though Larkin displayed more power it wasnt enough to move him in front of Stillwell who seemed to have some intangibles that the Reds liked they were both part of the crown jewels, as I remember it, I wouldve been happy either way with who got traded Stillwell was that good. IMO Stillwell lost some confidence because the Reds traded him and Larkin gained confidence.

My argument was never who was perceived better at the time, but who SHOULD have been perceived better at the time and it clearly should have been Larkin. The fans aren't the people I care about as far as who they thought was or wasn't better. They didn't know the stats these guys had in the minors, all they knew was what someone told them in a broadcasters booth, who only knew what was told to him by someone with the Reds. GM's and talent evaluators though knew the stats and it should have been pretty evident to them who should have been the clear choice based on both tools and production.

RedEye
06-28-2009, 04:01 PM
So... does Stubbs get a promotion soon now that Heisey is in AAA?

OnBaseMachine
06-28-2009, 04:02 PM
So... does Stubbs get a promotion soon now that Heisey is in AAA?

Nah, not yet. Stubbs is in a huge slump right now. I'd let him rebound and then maybe call him up later on.

Benihana
06-28-2009, 04:02 PM
Larkin showed power and other secondary skills in the minor leagues while having similar tools. Stillwell showed an abillity to draw a walk in the minors, but not other real offensive skills with similar tools. Why is it not an easy choice to take the guy with just as good tools, who also produced over the guy with the same type of tools, but very little production and offensively only had one skill (drawing a walk)? The fact that I wasn't old enough at the time to be familiar with it doesn't change that fact that one guy had tools that he used as skills (Larkin - Defense, power, hittability, discipline) and one guy had tools that he couldn't really use as skills (Stillwell - Defense and discipline).

Hmmm, sound familiar? Bringing this back to the original topic of the thread, it looks like based off of what you said- the Heisey/Stubbs decision should be easy.

icehole3
06-28-2009, 04:03 PM
My argument was never who was perceived better at the time, but who SHOULD have been perceived better at the time and it clearly should have been Larkin. The fans aren't the people I care about as far as who they thought was or wasn't better. They didn't know the stats these guys had in the minors, all they knew was what someone told them in a broadcasters booth, who only knew what was told to him by someone with the Reds. GM's and talent evaluators though knew the stats and it should have been pretty evident to them who should have been the clear choice based on both tools and production.

sorry I misunderstood you

mth123
06-28-2009, 04:10 PM
My argument was never who was perceived better at the time, but who SHOULD have been perceived better at the time and it clearly should have been Larkin. The fans aren't the people I care about as far as who they thought was or wasn't better. They didn't know the stats these guys had in the minors, all they knew was what someone told them in a broadcasters booth, who only knew what was told to him by someone with the Reds. GM's and talent evaluators though knew the stats and it should have been pretty evident to them who should have been the clear choice based on both tools and production.

My theory, having lived through it, is that the SS position that you know was not what it was then. There was a definition of what a SS was supposed to be back then and Stillwell was close to it. Larkin, along with Ripken and later the big three of A-Rod, Garciaparra and Jeter, redefined what the position is. Guys like Larkin weren't thought to be long-term SS and if they became one, then it meant they likely morphed into more of what Stillwell was. Those who saw Larkin as better than Stillwell didn't really consider him a SS. Those who considered him a SS, couldn't see how he could be better than Stillwell. Its easy looking back but not at the time. Back then, teams were wishing for a guy like Stillwell to come along and solve their SS problem. Nobody considered wishing for such a good all around player like Larkin. Those just weren't what SS were.

Benihana
06-28-2009, 04:14 PM
Why can't they just be happy with a solid 4th OF that does not cost much?

If Votto goes to LF and Yonder plays 1st that is.

Because we would be talking about a potential fifth OF that would be a very valuable trade chip to acquire another need. In your scenario, where's Dickerson?

icehole3
06-28-2009, 04:15 PM
wasnt Ripken really the first SS to have power an change GMs thinking???

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 04:23 PM
Hmmm, sound familiar? Bringing this back to the original topic of the thread, it looks like based off of what you said- the Heisey/Stubbs decision should be easy.

Except the tools aren't really similar between Heisey and Stubbs. Stubbs is an elite defender with a better arm and more speed than Heisey. Heisey is a better hitter right now (and potentially in the future as well). The difference is, until this year in AA as a 24 year old, Heisey has never really put up a season thats been much better than that of Stubbs and Stubbs hasn't ever really put together a craptastic type of season(s) like Stillwell did either.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 04:27 PM
My theory, having lived through it, is that the SS position that you know was not what it was then. There was a definition of what a SS was supposed to be back then and Stillwell was close to it. Larkin, along with Ripken and later the big three of A-Rod, Garciaparra and Jeter, redefined what the position is. Guys like Larkin weren't thought to be long-term SS and if they became one, then it meant they likely morphed into more of what Stillwell was. Those who saw Larkin as better than Stillwell didn't really consider him a SS. Those who considered him a SS, couldn't see how he could be better than Stillwell. Its easy looking back but not at the time. Back then, teams were wishing for a guy like Stillwell to come along and solve their SS problem. Nobody considered wishing for such a good all around player like Larkin. Those just weren't what SS were.

You may be right, but that doesn't mean it SHOULDN'T have been an easy decision. Simply because baseball people weren't nearly as smart in the 80s as they are now doesn't mean it shouldn't have been an easy decision.

DoogMinAmo
06-28-2009, 04:28 PM
My argument was never who was perceived better at the time, but who SHOULD have been perceived better at the time and it clearly should have been Larkin. The fans aren't the people I care about as far as who they thought was or wasn't better. They didn't know the stats these guys had in the minors, all they knew was what someone told them in a broadcasters booth, who only knew what was told to him by someone with the Reds. GM's and talent evaluators though knew the stats and it should have been pretty evident to them who should have been the clear choice based on both tools and production.


I wonder if maybe the Reds saw them equally, put both on the trading block, got a better offer for Stillwell, pulled the trigger, and got lucky with Larkin. It is not always a calculated and correct decision.

fearofpopvol1
06-28-2009, 05:11 PM
Except the tools aren't really similar between Heisey and Stubbs. Stubbs is an elite defender with a better arm and more speed than Heisey. Heisey is a better hitter right now (and potentially in the future as well). The difference is, until this year in AA as a 24 year old, Heisey has never really put up a season thats been much better than that of Stubbs and Stubbs hasn't ever really put together a craptastic type of season(s) like Stillwell did either.

Heisey's offensive numbers have been better than Stubbs at every level thus far. Stubbs is the more "toolsy" player, but tools don't necessarily equate to "better."

I don't know that there is a clear answer to this question yet. It seems like Heisey is better with the lumber, but doesn't play quite the same defense but Stubbs plays the better defense with the weaker lumber. It comes down really to what you want.

dougdirt
06-28-2009, 05:27 PM
Heisey's offensive numbers have been better than Stubbs at every level thus far. Stubbs is the more "toolsy" player, but tools don't necessarily equate to "better."

I don't know that there is a clear answer to this question yet. It seems like Heisey is better with the lumber, but doesn't play quite the same defense but Stubbs plays the better defense with the weaker lumber. It comes down really to what you want.

Heisey has had better numbers, but until this year they weren't all that much better and for the last year Heisey has been a level behind Stubbs as well. Its not like a Stillwell and Larkin thing where Stillwell was clearly and completely outhit. Heisey had an 16 point OPS advantage over Stubbs. The two cases aren't even close to being comparable as Benihana is suggesting.

Redmachine2003
06-28-2009, 07:59 PM
Player Name Stat Bavg Obp Slg OPS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HR 2B R RBI SB
Drew Stubbs Minor 0.271 0.367 0.41 777 380 1415 236 383 88 14 27 145 102 33 200 389 0.07 0.23 0.62 0.38 0.27
Chris Heisey Minor 0.302 0.377 0.461 838 392 1445 254 437 91 12 38 190 78 14 150 213 0.1 0.23 0.65 0.48 0.2



Scouting Reports
Heisey
Power: 62
Speed: 85
Contact: 72
Patience: 48

Stubbs
Power: 84
Speed: 93
Contact: 17
Patience: 80

Some more numbers for comparison



Sorry I suck at getting things to line up

nemesis
06-29-2009, 12:30 AM
Based on the numbers you put up, it's not even close. Let's look at it without the draft pick infront of the players. If no one knew Stubbs was a 1st rounder and Heisley was a 17th rounder you showed them these 2 lines, there wouldn't be much of a discussion. People need to look past the first round label and compare the players not the hype.

Brutus
06-29-2009, 12:34 AM
Player Name Stat Bavg Obp Slg OPS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HR 2B R RBI SB
Drew Stubbs Minor 0.271 0.367 0.41 777 380 1415 236 383 88 14 27 145 102 33 200 389 0.07 0.23 0.62 0.38 0.27
Chris Heisey Minor 0.302 0.377 0.461 838 392 1445 254 437 91 12 38 190 78 14 150 213 0.1 0.23 0.65 0.48 0.2



Scouting Reports
Heisey
Power: 62
Speed: 85
Contact: 72
Patience: 48

Stubbs
Power: 84
Speed: 93
Contact: 17
Patience: 80

Some more numbers for comparison



Sorry I suck at getting things to line up


Use the 'Code' tag (pound sign) and paste it between the tags. It will align things for you much better. Sometimes the label row is off a bit, but usually by using the space bar for the first label until it matches the first column of data will get it to look good.

Scrap Irony
06-29-2009, 12:36 AM
Heisey is a legitmate plus CF with great range, a very good arm, and great route running. Stubbs has Gold Glove potential. As of now, Stubbs is no more than a five or ten run better CF over an entire season.

Stubbs is much more balleyhooed, but Heisey's got the numbers.

If they were race horses, Seabuscuit and War Admiral would come to mind. Production v. pedigree.

Really can't go wrong with either, especially considering the mule in CF on most days in the Queen City.


I remember the Stillwell/ Larkin controversy well. Larkin defensively was considered talented, but supremely inconsistent. No one knew what to expect from him with the leather. He grew out of the inconsistency as he matured. But the decision was one discussed ad nauseum for about a year. If we'd had a Redszone then, you can be sure there would have been a couple thousand posts on the subject.

dougdirt
06-29-2009, 01:20 AM
Based on the numbers you put up, it's not even close. Let's look at it without the draft pick infront of the players. If no one knew Stubbs was a 1st rounder and Heisley was a 17th rounder you showed them these 2 lines, there wouldn't be much of a discussion. People need to look past the first round label and compare the players not the hype.

Stat lines don't mean everything.

Here is one example


Player A
Age Level PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG OPS
18 Rk 230 186 62 13 2 2 29 14 5 3 7 .333 .423 .457 .880
19 A 476 423 125 16 3 4 43 43 1 5 4 .296 .359 .376 .735
20 A+ 447 380 111 21 2 6 54 47 6 5 2 .292 .387 .405 .792
21 AA 560 509 153 31 2 15 36 69 8 4 3 .301 .354 .458 .812
Career 1713 1498 451 81 9 27 162 173 20 17 16 .301 .373 .421 .794

Player B
Age Level PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG OPS
18 Rk 184 164 56 11 3 6 16 15 2 0 2 .341 .402 .555 .957
18 A- 105 97 36 9 2 1 4 14 2 0 2 .371 .400 .536 .936
19 A 464 422 116 24 3 8 32 73 2 5 3 .275 .327 .403 .730
20 A+ 263 239 74 8 4 1 17 39 4 2 1 .310 .364 .389 .753
20 AA 139 129 40 7 2 5 10 26 0 0 0 .310 .360 .512 .872
21 AA 519 465 126 21 7 6 39 62 7 5 3 .271 .335 .385 .720
Career 1674 1516 448 80 21 27 118 229 17 12 11 .296 .351 .429 .780


Player A and Player B showed very similar stat lines at very similar levels at the same ages. One guy is Hanley Ramirez. The other guy in Alex Romero.

Scrap Irony.... where do you get the 'Heisey is a plus CF' from? I can't say I have ever seen that comment on Heisey before. He is a solid centerfielder, but no scouting report I have ever seen suggests he is a plus CF guy.

nemesis
06-29-2009, 01:28 AM
Stat lines don't mean everything.

Here is one example


Player A
Age Level PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG OPS
18 Rk 230 186 62 13 2 2 29 14 5 3 7 .333 .423 .457 .880
19 A 476 423 125 16 3 4 43 43 1 5 4 .296 .359 .376 .735
20 A+ 447 380 111 21 2 6 54 47 6 5 2 .292 .387 .405 .792
21 AA 560 509 153 31 2 15 36 69 8 4 3 .301 .354 .458 .812
Career 1713 1498 451 81 9 27 162 173 20 17 16 .301 .373 .421 .794

Player B
Age Level PA AB H 2B 3B HR BB SO HBP SH SF AVG OBP SLG OPS
18 Rk 184 164 56 11 3 6 16 15 2 0 2 .341 .402 .555 .957
18 A- 105 97 36 9 2 1 4 14 2 0 2 .371 .400 .536 .936
19 A 464 422 116 24 3 8 32 73 2 5 3 .275 .327 .403 .730
20 A+ 263 239 74 8 4 1 17 39 4 2 1 .310 .364 .389 .753
20 AA 139 129 40 7 2 5 10 26 0 0 0 .310 .360 .512 .872
21 AA 519 465 126 21 7 6 39 62 7 5 3 .271 .335 .385 .720
Career 1674 1516 448 80 21 27 118 229 17 12 11 .296 .351 .429 .780


Player A and Player B showed very similar stat lines at very similar levels at the same ages. One guy is Hanley Ramirez. The other guy in Alex Romero.

Scrap Irony.... where do you get the 'Heisey is a plus CF' from? I can't say I have ever seen that comment on Heisey before. He is a solid centerfielder, but no scouting report I have ever seen suggests he is a plus CF guy.

I agree. They don't always translate but they could mean something. I swear if Albert P was in the Reds system he would have been in the minors 2 additional years.

dougdirt
06-29-2009, 01:45 AM
I agree. They don't always translate but they could mean something. I swear if Albert P was in the Reds system he would have been in the minors 2 additional years.

If the Cardinals didn't have an injury to their 3B in the spring of 2001 he probably would have been in the minors for another year with the Cards too. I mean honestly the guy played most of 2000 in the Midwest League (where Dayton plays... in Low A) and then got 104 PA between A+ and AAA where OPS'd .783. It just wasn't in the plans to put him in the Majors until the injury to Bonilla happened and well, he just kept on hitting in the spring. The plan was to send him to AAA at the start of the year, but things worked out how the did and well, the rest is history.

tripleaaaron
06-29-2009, 02:48 AM
My theory, having lived through it, is that the SS position that you know was not what it was then. There was a definition of what a SS was supposed to be back then and Stillwell was close to it. Larkin, along with Ripken and later the big three of A-Rod, Garciaparra and Jeter, redefined what the position is. Guys like Larkin weren't thought to be long-term SS and if they became one, then it meant they likely morphed into more of what Stillwell was. Those who saw Larkin as better than Stillwell didn't really consider him a SS. Those who considered him a SS, couldn't see how he could be better than Stillwell. Its easy looking back but not at the time. Back then, teams were wishing for a guy like Stillwell to come along and solve their SS problem. Nobody considered wishing for such a good all around player like Larkin. Those just weren't what SS were.

So what you're saying is if Larkin and Stillwell were on our present day team, Stillwell would be starting and Larkin would be heading for KC?

GIDP
06-29-2009, 03:56 AM
I dont know how anyone could really win this debate. Both players have a lot of good sides, some downs, and seem to have a good shot at being ML starting players.

mth123
06-29-2009, 04:51 AM
So what you're saying is if Larkin and Stillwell were on our present day team, Stillwell would be starting and Larkin would be heading for KC?

Present day, probably not because Dusty would want to keep Larkin to teach him how to bunt three times a game because he runs fast (which seems more important than actual baseball ability) and he'd probably have him playing CF in batting practice with the intent of moving him. When Larkin refused, Dusty would pull out his "player handling" skills and smooth it over and the Hall of Fame SS we saw in cincy would probably end-up as a mediocre CF who couldn't get playing time with Eric Davis in front of him. (Davis was even faster and would be bunting 3 or maybe even 4 times a game as well.);)

But if the prior regime was still in charge they'd deal both Larkin and Stillwell for Gary Majewski and Royce Clayton.

:beerme:

mth123
06-29-2009, 05:07 AM
Back to Heisey and Stubbs.

The scouting report shows Stubbs with more power than Heisey and I have to think its a lot of the reason that Stubbs went so high in the draft. Speedy CF really aren't that hard to find, but ones who add power are pretty rare (and of course the plate discipline is really nice as well). It seems that Heisey has become what Stubbs scouting report said Stubbs was going to be.

I keep Heisey and deal Stubbs and the value that the scouting report gives him for other needs. I'd guess Stubbs probably still has more trade value and, if that is true, even if you think they are equal as players, I think the combination of Heisey and what you could get for Stubbs would be more valuable than Stubbs and what you could get for Heisey. To me the decision should be based largely on which one you could get the most for and I'd be pretty content keeping the other to split CF with Dickerson.

HokieRed
06-29-2009, 08:41 AM
It seems premature to me to trade either at this time, especially as Heisey puts up numbers that suggest he might be a legitimate corner outfielder, making the dilemma of Stubbs vs. Heisey a false one. Also I see nothing compelling about the players we seem continually to be mentioned with: Wigginton, Matthews, Lugo, even Holliday. None are significant enough upgrades from what we have--particularly as EE returns--to warrant trading either Stubbs or Heisey--particularly Stubbs, where I still think the ceiling is quite high, given his defense.

mth123
06-29-2009, 09:25 AM
It seems premature to me to trade either at this time, especially as Heisey puts up numbers that suggest he might be a legitimate corner outfielder, making the dilemma of Stubbs vs. Heisey a false one. Also I see nothing compelling about the players we seem continually to be mentioned with: Wigginton, Matthews, Lugo, even Holliday. None are significant enough upgrades from what we have--particularly as EE returns--to warrant trading either Stubbs or Heisey--particularly Stubbs, where I still think the ceiling is quite high, given his defense.

But if you keep both, then what of Bruce, Alonso, Votto, Frazier, Dickerson, et al. I think the team needs a reallocation of talent and I would be happy to deal Stubbs for another spot. Keeping all those OF types seems like a Bowdenesque waste of resources. I wouldn't deal him for Wigginton, Matthews or Willingham (but might for Holiday simply to show some commitment to the fans it would depend on the rest of the deal), but there is nothing saying Stubbs involvement in a deal has to be for one of those types. Maybe he is included in a deal in the off-season with Arroyo or some one like that with the goal of filling the SS need or getting an upgrade for the Rotation. Heck if Peavey was healthy, I'd make Stubbs a primary piece in a deal for him.

bucksfan2
06-29-2009, 11:15 AM
Back to Heisey and Stubbs.

The scouting report shows Stubbs with more power than Heisey and I have to think its a lot of the reason that Stubbs went so high in the draft. Speedy CF really aren't that hard to find, but ones who add power are pretty rare (and of course the plate discipline is really nice as well). It seems that Heisey has become what Stubbs scouting report said Stubbs was going to be.

I keep Heisey and deal Stubbs and the value that the scouting report gives him for other needs. I'd guess Stubbs probably still has more trade value and, if that is true, even if you think they are equal as players, I think the combination of Heisey and what you could get for Stubbs would be more valuable than Stubbs and what you could get for Heisey. To me the decision should be based largely on which one you could get the most for and I'd be pretty content keeping the other to split CF with Dickerson.

I keep both of them. IMO both of their potential value is much higher than the trade value. Right now Heisey would be a throw in on a trade. He doesn't have a high enough value to be the center piece of a trade. Stubbs probably has more value but would you really want to give up a CF who already has good plate discipline and has the potential to become a 20+ HR guy especially at GABP? When was the last time the Reds had a legit all around CF? Jr in 2000-2001? Cammeron in 1999?

Right now the Reds don't need to trade either player. Right now I think the best value is a lateral trade, prospect for prospect. I just don't think either have enough value to warrant much back in a ready major leaguer. I think the best option for the Reds is to keep both and give both a year with the Reds. Then they will be able to make a better decision on who to keep, whether Heisey can hit enough to play LF, and whether one needs to be traded .

Benihana
06-29-2009, 11:27 AM
I keep both of them. IMO both of their potential value is much higher than the trade value.

Isn't that almost always true of a prospect?


Stubbs probably has more value but would you really want to give up a CF who already has good plate discipline and has the potential to become a 20+ HR guy especially at GABP?

To fill another need? Yes.


When was the last time the Reds had a legit all around CF? Jr in 2000-2001? Cammeron in 1999?

Probably Eric Davis.


Right now the Reds don't need to trade either player. I think the best option for the Reds is to keep both and give both a year with the Reds. Then they will be able to make a better decision on who to keep, whether Heisey can hit enough to play LF, and whether one needs to be traded .

And therein lies the rub. If you keep both long enough to find out which one is worth keeping and which one isn't, the latter has probably lost most of his trade value. When dealing with trading prospects, the key is to sell high, especially when you have multiple ones at the same position. If you think a guy like Heisey doesn't have much value now, what will his value be if he's a 26 year old with a sub .700 OPS in between AAA and the majors? Look at what's happened with the White Sox, with guys like Jerry Owens, Josh Fields, and Brian Anderson. Each of those guys had significant trade value at one point in the last 2-3 years, only to flop in the bigs and be cast by the wayside. I'm not advocating trading all of your prospects before they have a chance to prove themselves and help your team, but when you have a glut like the Reds do at a non-transferable position and gaping holes elsewhere, you can extract the most value by making a trade. It's a risk for sure, but one worth taking IMO, especially if you have trust in your scouts to make the right decision.

Drew Stubbs and Chris Heisey have been in the Reds system for four seasons now, which is plenty of time to make a decision on whether or not you think they have enough stick to be a player at the major league level. IMO, and it's just MO, I don't believe Chris Heisey has enough stick to be a starting LF on a legitimate team. Until this year, the guy has never hit double-digit HRs at any level in the minors. Ditto for Drew Stubbs. That means that they can only play CF in the majors. The Reds already have one of those in Chris Dickerson. Unless they plan on really going for the pitching and defense model and starting three CFs, they can't play all three of them. This is when good GMs are separated from the bad. Make a decision Walt: take a risk and hopefully reap the reward.

Redmachine2003
06-29-2009, 11:49 AM
I think the scouting report shows why Heisey is on the rise and Stubbs is struggling. Stubbs has a 17 rating for contact and Heisey has 73 I think. The number one thing in baseball is to be able to put the ball in play. The over all skill set for Stubbs is higher but not that much and one of Heisey strength is being able to make contact is what gives him the edge. If Heisey continues to hit at AAA he will surpass Stubbs and should get the call up at the end of the season.

HokieRed
06-29-2009, 12:04 PM
But if you keep both, then what of Bruce, Alonso, Votto, Frazier, Dickerson, et al. I think the team needs a reallocation of talent and I would be happy to deal Stubbs for another spot. Keeping all those OF types seems like a Bowdenesque waste of resources. I wouldn't deal him for Wigginton, Matthews or Willingham (but might for Holiday simply to show some commitment to the fans it would depend on the rest of the deal), but there is nothing saying Stubbs involvement in a deal has to be for one of those types. Maybe he is included in a deal in the off-season with Arroyo or some one like that with the goal of filling the SS need or getting an upgrade for the Rotation. Heck if Peavey was healthy, I'd make Stubbs a primary piece in a deal for him.

I didn't say I'd keep them both permanently, only that trading one now is premature, especially for the kinds of non-improvement we hear being mentioned (including Holliday, who is only, at best, marginally better than our Nix-Gomes platoon and quite possibly not as good.) I am all in favor of making a few, major off-season trades (as a matter of general principle) aimed at long-term strengthening of the organization. With that in mind, I'd look to package Stubbs or Heisey (probably Heisey) at the right time for what I still think will be our two greatest needs--a quality SS and another starting pitcher. And the package would reflect my number one priority for handling of our prospects: it would not include Alonso (under any circumstances.)

kpresidente
06-29-2009, 12:17 PM
I don't believe Chris Heisey has enough stick to be a starting LF on a legitimate team. Until this year, the guy has never hit double-digit HRs at any level in the minors. Ditto for Drew Stubbs. That means that they can only play CF in the majors. The Reds already have one of those in Chris Dickerson.

Maybe not alone, but a Dickerson/Heisey platoon might give you a legit corner OF bat, with good defense to boot. Both guys have a significant split. I wouldn't rule that out, especially if we can get a good enough SS or SP out of Alonso.

The good thing about organizational depth is there are lots of scenario's that work. The only thing that's certain is we have to get a SS. Let that drive the decisions about who gets moved. Focus on good value in the swap, not the specific player.

fearofpopvol1
06-29-2009, 01:14 PM
Back to Heisey and Stubbs.

The scouting report shows Stubbs with more power than Heisey and I have to think its a lot of the reason that Stubbs went so high in the draft. Speedy CF really aren't that hard to find, but ones who add power are pretty rare (and of course the plate discipline is really nice as well). It seems that Heisey has become what Stubbs scouting report said Stubbs was going to be.

I keep Heisey and deal Stubbs and the value that the scouting report gives him for other needs. I'd guess Stubbs probably still has more trade value and, if that is true, even if you think they are equal as players, I think the combination of Heisey and what you could get for Stubbs would be more valuable than Stubbs and what you could get for Heisey. To me the decision should be based largely on which one you could get the most for and I'd be pretty content keeping the other to split CF with Dickerson.

I think this is a really solid assessment. But...for whatever reason, I could see the organization holding on to Stubbs simply because they have spent more money on him, he was a very high pick and they've spent some long trying to develop him. I like your thinking on this better though.

dougdirt
06-29-2009, 01:14 PM
Back to Heisey and Stubbs.

The scouting report shows Stubbs with more power than Heisey and I have to think its a lot of the reason that Stubbs went so high in the draft. The scouting reports had Stubbs with more RAW power than Heisey. Big difference and it had little to do with where he was drafted, it was his leverage, swing and size (as well as his ability to hit 450 foot HR's from time to time).

mth123
06-29-2009, 01:33 PM
The scouting reports had Stubbs with more RAW power than Heisey. Big difference and it had little to do with where he was drafted, it was his leverage, swing and size (as well as his ability to hit 450 foot HR's from time to time).

So, do you think Stubbs is a top 10 pick if that power number wasn't so high? I don't. I think its primarily what differentiates him from every other speedy CF type. His plate discipline is great and will make him a decent regular when coupled with his other skills, but he needs those 450 foot shots you mention to become an All Star caliber player. I have to wonder if we'll ever see it since we haven't really seen it yet.

dougdirt
06-29-2009, 01:35 PM
So, do you think Stubbs is a top 10 pick if that power number wasn't so high? I don't. I think its primarily what differentiates him from every other speedy CF type. His plate discipline is great and will make him a decent regular when coupled with his other skills, but he needs those 450 foot shots you mention to become an All Star caliber player. I have to wonder if we'll ever see it since we haven't really seen it yet.
Sure, but he still would have been a first rounder because of his defense, speed and plate discipline. Its also worth noting that draft was considered pretty weak at the time it happened.

mth123
06-29-2009, 01:56 PM
Sure, but he still would have been a first rounder because of his defense, speed and plate discipline. Its also worth noting that draft was considered pretty weak at the time it happened.

Well here is where I stand. I like power and think its important for a hitter to have to produce runs and keep his on base percentage high. Teams aren't going to walk guys with Stubbs speed even if it means they have to groove it in there unless he shows he can make them pay. Since we haven't really seen it yet, I'm skeptical. I think Stubbs is probably superior to Heisey in most other areas, but the contact and power skills are more important in my mind. I'll take Heisey and his lesser (but still more than adequate) speed and defense and pair him with Dickerson if necessary to get cheap CF production for the upcoming window of opportunity that is presenting itself.

The bonus is that even though I value Heisey more for his power, I cash in on Stubbs first round potential and fill another need in a deal that Heisey's lower round status probably couldn't pull off. I don't think you get that kind of bonus keeping Stubbs and dealing Heisey.

dougdirt
06-29-2009, 02:19 PM
Well here is where I stand. I like power and think its important for a hitter to have to produce runs and keep his on base percentage high. Teams aren't going to walk guys with Stubbs speed even if it means they have to groove it in there unless he shows he can make them pay. Since we haven't really seen it yet, I'm skeptical. I think Stubbs is probably superior to Heisey in most other areas, but the contact and power skills are more important in my mind. I'll take Heisey and his lesser (but still more than adequate) speed and defense and pair him with Dickerson if necessary to get cheap CF production for the upcoming window of opportunity that is presenting itself.

The bonus is that even though I value Heisey more for his power, I cash in on Stubbs first round potential and fill another need in a deal that Heisey's lower round status probably couldn't pull off. I don't think you get that kind of bonus keeping Stubbs and dealing Heisey.
Thats fine. I was simply addressing the issue that Stubbs even without the power would be a first rounder because of the other stuff that he does so well.

nemesis
06-29-2009, 02:46 PM
I think we will find out who's metal is tougher in ther next 2 months. They are going head to head, back to back in the lineup every night. Stubbs could thrive or dive depending on his mental make up and pressue of competition. Heisley could be exposed against close to MLB quality RH's or prove he can hit them and with enough power to play a corner OF spot. The best as Red's fans we can hope for is they feed off each other and both suceed.

Benihana
06-29-2009, 02:52 PM
I think we will find out who's metal is tougher in ther next 2 months. They are going head to head, back to back in the lineup every night. Stubbs could thrive or dive depending on his mental make up and pressue of competition. Heisley could be exposed against close to MLB quality RH's or prove he can hit them and with enough power to play a corner OF spot. The best as Red's fans we can hope for is they feed off each other and both suceed.

Agreed. Stubbs has been mired in a horrible slump for a couple weeks now, so there will be no excuse as they're measured going forward. In other words, there won't be any cherrypicking of stats. I'm excited to see them go head-to-head over the next several weeks.

bucksfan2
06-29-2009, 03:25 PM
Agreed. Stubbs has been mired in a horrible slump for a couple weeks now, so there will be no excuse as they're measured going forward. In other words, there won't be any cherrypicking of stats. I'm excited to see them go head-to-head over the next several weeks.

They aren't really going head-to-head, they are playing on the same team. If you are looking for a clear answer who is better just by looking at their stat lines there will be a lot that is missed. The key now is to get a good look at how Heisey handles the promotion to AAA ball and how he handles the adjustment that the pitchers make. I also think that using roughly 60% of 1 season to determine who is the better player is foolish.

Benihana
06-29-2009, 03:30 PM
I also think that using roughly 60% of 1 season to determine who is the better player is foolish.

I'm not suggesting that they will be evaluated based solely off of their performance over the next several weeks. As I mentioned earlier, both players have been scrutinized in the system for four seasons now. I would guess that most of the decision-makers already have a good idea of which player they like better. Seeing them compete next to each other over the next several weeks may just serve as corroboration of such thoughts.

nemesis
06-29-2009, 04:39 PM
I also think that using roughly 60% of 1 season to determine who is the better player is foolish.

I agree to some degree... But I also think i's foolish not to think there is some merit in those numbers as well. This is the time of year where all the top prospects of EVERY team starts to filter up. I want to see how each does against them. If Stubbs hits say .265 .350 .400 from now til Sept and Heisley hits .290 .370 .450 wouldn't tha be continued proof that Heisley who's MiLB carrer OPS is .70 higher than Stubbs is quite possibly the better prospect?

bucksfan2
06-29-2009, 05:09 PM
I agree to some degree... But I also think i's foolish not to think there is some merit in those numbers as well. This is the time of year where all the top prospects of EVERY team starts to filter up. I want to see how each does against them. If Stubbs hits say .265 .350 .400 from now til Sept and Heisley hits .290 .370 .450 wouldn't tha be continued proof that Heisley who's MiLB carrer OPS is .70 higher than Stubbs is quite possibly the better prospect?

True, but what you and I may think are the valuable stats, the Reds organization may think otherwise. The organization may use an entirely different criteria for judging who they project to be a better player. Just because one player would have a slightly higher OPS doesn't exactly mean that will translate into a higher MLB OPS.

Use this for example. In AAA you basically have a couple different types of pitchers. You have the AAAA pitchers who don't have the "great" stuff but they know how to pitch. You also have your prospect that are wild, a little unrefined, but possess future big league stuff. Two good examples are Lehr and Bailey. Lets assume Heisey is much better offensively against the raw pitcher but really struggles against the AAAA type pitcher. Stubbs on the other hand hits each pitcher about the same. When you make the jump to the majors you don't have many "raw" pitches and most of your major league pitches have the stuff but also know how to pitch.

Kingspoint
06-29-2009, 08:49 PM
Its (Dorn's hitting) going to eventually work itself out.

Love what Dorn's done the last month.

Homer Bailey
07-08-2009, 10:36 AM
Little fantasy blurb on the two stud centerfielders:


Prospecting
Chris Heisey, Cin, OF – The 24-year-old Heisey continues to produce at a level that belies his 17th-round draft selection by the Reds in ’06. Already known for strong defensive skills and good speed, Heisey has brought a strong bat into focus in ’09. Before a recent promotion to Triple-A Louisville, Heisey was tearing up the Southern League for Carolina, smacking 18 doubles, 13 home runs and hitting at a .347 clip in 71 games. In his first nine games with Louisville, he’s added a home run while hitting .313. Along the way, he’s displayed excellent plate discipline, walking 35 times compared to 39 strikeouts. A few weeks back, I wrote about Drew Stubbs being one of the organizations’ next outfielders in line for a call-up. But Stubbs has struggled recently, hitting .177 with 25 strikeouts in his past 17 games. Because of Stubbs’ slump, Heisey may now be closer to Cincinnati than Stubbs.

http://sports.yahoo.com/fantasy/mlb/news;_ylt=AoyWu5qbnft_PsEmfq3Wwv65bZ8u?slug=bf-skinny_070709

Redmachine2003
07-08-2009, 11:32 AM
They aren't really going head-to-head, they are playing on the same team. If you are looking for a clear answer who is better just by looking at their stat lines there will be a lot that is missed. The key now is to get a good look at how Heisey handles the promotion to AAA ball and how he handles the adjustment that the pitchers make. I also think that using roughly 60% of 1 season to determine who is the better player is foolish.

But this next half of the season will determind what kind of prospect they are to the Reds. They are at the age were they don't have another year or two to figure it out. So who steps up in the last half will be the better prospect to the Reds.

Kingspoint
07-08-2009, 10:03 PM
I've waited a long time to respond to the initial question of this thread, but I think Stubbs will have a better career. I love his patience at the plate. It will lead to more productive at-bats in the Majors and make him more useful to the team as a whole, when you add in his speed and defense. Hopefully Dusty will be gone, so that he doesn't try to change his approach at the plate.

Redmachine2003
07-09-2009, 10:42 AM
I've waited a long time to respond to the initial question of this thread, but I think Stubbs will have a better career. I love his patience at the plate. It will lead to more productive at-bats in the Majors and make him more useful to the team as a whole, when you add in his speed and defense. Hopefully Dusty will be gone, so that he doesn't try to change his approach at the plate.

My question is why is approach better than Heisey? Stubbs on a pace to walk 80 times and Strike out 140 with now power. Is that patience or the fact he can't make solid contact so he just doesn't swing the bat? Heisey is on pace to walk 70 times and Strike out 80 times and hits doubles and homers. I am not trying to argue with you I just don't understand how Stubbs approach at the plate is really a plus tool over Heisey. I would love both of them to become part of the Reds outfield but how can Stubbs be considered the better prospect, when Heisey has made the adjustments to become a better hitter and Stubbs hasn't yet.

Scrap Irony
07-09-2009, 12:04 PM
According to Baseball-Reference, the difference between Heisey's BBs and Stubb's are three. Three walks. At this point, Stubbs has 28 more Ks. (Almost twice as many, in fact.)

I realize numbers and production have only a little to do with prospect evaluation. (In some minds, very little, in fact.) I also realize most of Heisey's BBs are from AA and Stubbs' K's are all in AAA.

But the numbers, such as they are, are not close. Stubbs is faster and steals more bases. He's better defensively.

Heisey, though, has better plate coverage/ eye, better bat on ball skills, much more power, and his arm is just as good (if not better). Plus, it's not like Heisey is slow (79 SBs in 405 games) and his glove is just a tick below Stubbs.

krm1580
07-09-2009, 02:49 PM
For me Stubbs strikeout rates combined with his lack of HR power to offset it are an issue. I know some people think strikeouts are no different than any other outs and are better than bouncing into double plays, but I think "strikeout hitters" are a problem.

Last night compare the 7th inning at bat of Dickerson to the 8th inning at bat by Victorino. Dickerson took 2 swings and took a close pitch for strike 3 looking. Victorino on the other hand took a 14 pitch walk, fouling off anything that looked close.

I have said in other posts I think Victorino is a good upside comparison to Heisey in that he is not great in any facet of the game but he is a difficult out and can beat you in a lot of different ways, (good defense, can get on base, can run and has occasional power)

Kingspoint
07-09-2009, 07:46 PM
My question is why is approach better than Heisey? Stubbs on a pace to walk 80 times and Strike out 140 with now power. Is that patience or the fact he can't make solid contact so he just doesn't swing the bat? Heisey is on pace to walk 70 times and Strike out 80 times and hits doubles and homers. I am not trying to argue with you I just don't understand how Stubbs approach at the plate is really a plus tool over Heisey. I would love both of them to become part of the Reds outfield but how can Stubbs be considered the better prospect, when Heisey has made the adjustments to become a better hitter and Stubbs hasn't yet.

I might be wrong on this one. They are close. I don't think the strikeouts will be so pronounced for Stubbs when he gets to the Majors. The 4-7 ration of walks to strikeouts that your stating will level itself out to 50-50. Just my opinion, but I based it on how I see him take his at-bats. I like how both players are excellent at making adjustments throughout their careers. To me, nothing more important for a baseball player. I don't see how either of them can fail from becoming starters for several years in the Majors.

Kingspoint
07-09-2009, 07:49 PM
Dickerson took 2 swings and took a close pitch for strike 3 looking.


I saw that pitch. It was not a strike....not even close.

7 REDS couldn't have all been wrong last night as they were "caught looking". The Ump had major problems last night. But, as Tony Gwynn would say, "It's your fault if you can't figure out the umpire on a given night. That's one of your jobs as a hitter."

Redmachine2003
07-10-2009, 11:31 AM
Now if we can get Stubbs to stand real close to the plate choke up on the bat and not be afraid to get hit by a pitch we may have a real lead off hitter for the future. If he became that pesky hitter that would make a pitcher through alot of pitches every at bat it would be a nice change of pace from the Lead off hitters we have seen of late.

New Fever
07-10-2009, 04:40 PM
Adam (Baltimore): Did Chris Heisey's name come up in the discussion? Would it be safe to guess that he would fall in the 51-100 somewhere? I know that he has gotten a lot of attention in the chats/features with BA which is awesome to see for a guy that was under the radar his entire career. If the season ended today, would he be in the talks for Minor League POY?

J.J. Cooper: Absolutely Adam, that's where he would rank and he's a significant candidate for Minor League Player of the Year

Rojo
07-10-2009, 05:33 PM
I don't think the strikeouts will be so pronounced for Stubbs when he gets to the Majors.


And I get better looking as I age.

Rojo
07-10-2009, 05:34 PM
I have said in other posts I think Victorino is a good upside comparison to Heisey in that he is not great in any facet of the game but he is a difficult out and can beat you in a lot of different ways, (good defense, can get on base, can run and has occasional power)

Good comp.

GOYA
07-10-2009, 06:25 PM
I've been avoiding this thread but I now have to give the nod to Heisey.

He is a slight reduction in defense and a larger reduction in stolen bases but he more than makes up for it with his bat. Both in avg and power, he's head and shoulders above Stubbs. Not that Stubbs is bad by any means. But he's no Heisey. I'd hope that Drew sees Heisey as very real competition for a trip to the majors and steps up his game too. I'm headed to the Bats game tonight and hope to see both Heisey and Stewart for the first time.

Redmachine2003
07-10-2009, 06:39 PM
I've been avoiding this thread but I now have to give the nod to Heisey.

He is a slight reduction in defense and a larger reduction in stolen bases but he more than makes up for it with his bat. Both in avg and power, he's head and shoulders above Stubbs. Not that Stubbs is bad by any means. But he's no Heisey. I'd hope that Drew sees Heisey as very real competition for a trip to the majors and steps up his game too. I'm headed to the Bats game tonight and hope to see both Heisey and Stewart for the first time.I think Stubbs needs to work on being a two strike slap hitter and being a true leadoff hitter where as Heisey is becoming solid # 3 type hitter with avg and power

dougdirt
07-10-2009, 06:41 PM
I think Stubbs needs to work on being a two strike slap hitter and being a true leadoff hitter where as Heisey is becoming solid # 3 type hitter with avg and power

Heisey isn't a MLB #3 hitter. He just doesn't have that kind of power. MLB #3 hitters are 30+ HR guys. Heisey just doesn't have that. Heisey could be a very good #2 guy though with some pop and excellent bat control.

GIDP
07-10-2009, 07:18 PM
I'll give you another comp. Heisey to Larkin but with out the MVPesque years. I can see Heisey putting up a mid .300 OBP and some mid .400 slugging years.

I think as far as a bat goes the dude has one.

I will wait til he goes through a slump before I say hes better overall than Stubbs though.

GOYA
07-10-2009, 07:27 PM
I will wait til he goes through a slump before I say hes better overall than Stubbs though.

He went through one at the end of his AA days. I wanted to see him come out of it while still at Carolina but he seems to be more than fine now. And he had a recent 4 for 19 stretch with the Bats.

GIDP
07-10-2009, 07:29 PM
He went through one at the end of his AA days. I wanted to see him come out of it while still at Carolina but he seems to be more than fine now.

I mean at the AAA level. Hes been pretty much crushing the ball so far. I will wait for the numbers to level off some. I just think its hard to judge him right now. As it stands he seems better overall than Stubbs, but we have seen much much more of this Stubbs than we have seen of this version of Heisey.

GOYA
07-10-2009, 07:38 PM
Check my edit about the 4 for 19 stretch. It's not an extended slump but at the end of it, his avg was down to .289. Now it's back up to .354 after going 6 for 10 in his last two games. We are talking about very smalls samples and I thought Stubbs needed a full season at AAA and I don't see any reason to rush Heisey either. I expect they'll both be in big league camp next spring fighting for a position up north.

GIDP
07-10-2009, 07:44 PM
Check my edit about the 4 for 19 stretch. It's not an extended slump but at the end of it, his avg was down to .289. Now it's back up to .354 after going 6 for 10 in his last two games. We are talking about very smalls samples and I thought Stubbs needed a full season at AAA and I don't see any reason to rush Heisey either. I expect they'll both be in big league camp next spring fighting for a position up north.

Yea I hear what you are saying. I just want to see a lot of Heisey because of how quick he has come on. Its so hard to judge Heisey on just this quick dominance. I think he's pretty legit but I want to see the lows because even his lows so far this season havent been much.

Kingspoint
07-10-2009, 09:26 PM
Now if we can get Stubbs to stand real close to the plate choke up on the bat and not be afraid to get hit by a pitch we may have a real lead off hitter for the future. If he became that pesky hitter that would make a pitcher through alot of pitches every at bat it would be a nice change of pace from the Lead off hitters we have seen of late.

I think he does that already.....take a lot of pitches per at-bat.

Redmachine2003
07-10-2009, 09:45 PM
Heisey isn't a MLB #3 hitter. He just doesn't have that kind of power. MLB #3 hitters are 30+ HR guys. Heisey just doesn't have that. Heisey could be a very good #2 guy though with some pop and excellent bat control.I thought the #3 hitter is a person who is the best pure hitter. One that can hit for avg. and drive in runs with some extra base pop. But more often than not he will put the ball in play hard some where. I thought the #4 hitter was your power guy with 30 plus homers. To me Votto is a #3 hitter.

dougdirt
07-10-2009, 10:19 PM
I thought the #3 hitter is a person who is the best pure hitter. One that can hit for avg. and drive in runs with some extra base pop. But more often than not he will put the ball in play hard some where. I thought the #4 hitter was your power guy with 30 plus homers. To me Votto is a #3 hitter.

Chris Heisey isn't going to be the best hitter on any MLB team he is ever on. He just lacks the power to be that guy. Joey Votto is a #3 hitter and he would be on pace for 33 HR given a full seasons worth of playing time.

The typical #3 hitter is a guy who has the potential to go .300/.375/.525 on a consistent basis. Heisey is a solid bat, but he isn't that type of bat.

membengal
07-10-2009, 10:30 PM
Heisey's combined AA/AAA 1.000+ OPS notwithstanding...

dougdirt
07-10-2009, 10:37 PM
Heisey's combined AA/AAA 1.000+ OPS notwithstanding...

AA/AAA numbers as a 24 year old don't exactly translate perfectly to MLB numbers.

Redmachine2003
07-10-2009, 11:01 PM
The Kid is on his way to hitting 30 hrs too this year and they say power is the last thing to develop. If he gets called up this year he would be right on schedule for someone drafted in the 2006 class. Yes he is a year behind Votto but Votto was drafted in 2002 out of HS. Not to mention hitting a homer in GABP is not as hard to do.

nemesis
07-10-2009, 11:17 PM
Heisley strikes me as someone who would take advantage of that LCF gap that balls just seem to carry... I could see him as a 20/20 player with a .280 .350 .450 line...

reds44
07-10-2009, 11:31 PM
I'm going to bet anybody here that neither Stubs nor Heisey OPS above .750 for their career.

nemesis
07-11-2009, 12:07 AM
I'm going to bet anybody here that neither Stubs nor Heisey OPS above .750 for their career.

What leads you to belive that? I agree on Stubbs but not Heisley...

krm1580
07-11-2009, 12:52 AM
Has anybody actually seen Stubbs play? Why does he strike out so often? Slow bat? Long swing? Poor pitch recognition? His numbers perplex me from the standpoint that his K/AB has only slightly improved but his HR/AB has significantly declined

2007 K/3.47 AB HR/41.4 AB
2008 K/3.82 AB HR/67.1 AB
2009 K/3.87 AB HR/137.5 AB

Is there another player in the minors with a higher K rate, but a lower HR Rate?

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 01:01 AM
Has anybody actually seen Stubbs play? Why does he strike out so often? Slow bat? Long swing? Poor pitch recognition?


Stubbs is a very patient hitter. He sees a lot of pitches, which results in quite a few strikeouts, but also plenty of walks. His swing isn't long really, but its not short either. His pitch recognition is fine, as is his bat speed. He is just a very Adam Dunn esque type of guy in the sense that he is going to see a lot of pitches waiting for 'his pitch'.

Redmachine2003
07-11-2009, 01:48 AM
But Dunn has a long swing and trys to pull everything leading to alot of swing and misses why does Stubbs swing and miss so much? If his swing is fine then he should make more contact.

fearofpopvol1
07-11-2009, 02:00 AM
AA/AAA numbers as a 24 year old don't exactly translate perfectly to MLB numbers.

did you convey these thoughts to him when you interviewed him?

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 03:04 AM
But Dunn has a long swing and trys to pull everything leading to alot of swing and misses why does Stubbs swing and miss so much? If his swing is fine then he should make more contact.

Stubbs doesn't swing much. You are figuring strikeouts mean 3 swings and misses, but thats not the case with everyone. Stubbs isn't a guy with a strikeout problem. He isn't Greg Halman or even Adam Dunn in the K department. He would be on pace to strike out 130 times in a 600 PA season.

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 03:06 AM
did you convey these thoughts to him when you interviewed him?

I didn't interview him. And no, I didn't convey those thoughts nor would I. I think players certainly understand that what they do in the minors isn't likely what they are going to do in the majors.

OnBaseMachine
07-11-2009, 03:28 AM
Baseball America on Heisey:

Heisey might be the most unheralded member of the U.S. outfield, but he has five legitimate tools and has produced consistently since the Reds made him a 17th-round pick in 2006.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/futures-game/2009/268529.html

fearofpopvol1
07-11-2009, 03:54 AM
I didn't interview him. And no, I didn't convey those thoughts nor would I. I think players certainly understand that what they do in the minors isn't likely what they are going to do in the majors.

i thought you did? maybe i misread that somewhere.

you're often right about a lot of things...but there seems to be a pretty large contingency at RZ that disagree with you on Heisey's ceiling. the facts are pretty strong in that regard too.

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 04:39 AM
i thought you did? maybe i misread that somewhere.

you're often right about a lot of things...but there seems to be a pretty large contingency at RZ that disagree with you on Heisey's ceiling. the facts are pretty strong in that regard too.

No, a writer at FirstInning.com did. I also write there, so perhaps thats where wires were crossed.

As far as Heisey's ceiling, we shall see. I am not sure what 'my perceived ceiling' is for Heisey or what everyone elses is though. Its also pretty tough to suggest facts for something that hasn't happened yet.

mth123
07-11-2009, 05:14 AM
Heisley strikes me as someone who would take advantage of that LCF gap that balls just seem to carry... I could see him as a 20/20 player with a .280 .350 .450 line...

I think that is about right and superior to what I expect from Stubbs which is more of a .260/.340/.380/.720 line with 5/30 HR/SB combo. That is probably starting caliber but not my cup of tea. Stubbs needs to add some pop. He would be the top poistion player that I'd be looking to move to add help elsewhere.

nemesis
07-11-2009, 09:03 AM
I think that is about right and superior to what I expect from Stubbs which is more of a .260/.340/.380/.720 line with 5/30 HR/SB combo. That is probably starting caliber but not my cup of tea. Stubbs needs to add some pop. He would be the top poistion player that I'd be looking to move to add help elsewhere.

Totally agree with you. I would be less miffed about moving Stubbs than probaly any other prospect. On the other hand I'd be most miffed about moving Heisley. This in a similar way reminds me of Nelson Cruz. Not power wse mind you, although it seems to be a developing tool, is that he is well rounded and made himeself a better player. I really think winter ball helped him out alot. Keep in mind he is putting up better numbers than Bruce did 2 yeas ago when he was Baseball America's Player of the Year. I firmlly belive he could step in right now and at least currently put up a signifiigantly better line than Taveras. Maybe even Bruce.

membengal
07-11-2009, 09:36 AM
Baseball America on Heisey:

Heisey might be the most unheralded member of the U.S. outfield, but he has five legitimate tools and has produced consistently since the Reds made him a 17th-round pick in 2006.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/futures-game/2009/268529.html

No no no. Heisey sucks. I read it right here on this thread.

Will M
07-11-2009, 10:04 AM
Totally agree with you. I would be less miffed about moving Stubbs than probaly any other prospect. On the other hand I'd be most miffed about moving Heisley. This in a similar way reminds me of Nelson Cruz. Not power wse mind you, although it seems to be a developing tool, is that he is well rounded and made himeself a better player. I really think winter ball helped him out alot. Keep in mind he is putting up better numbers than Bruce did 2 yeas ago when he was Baseball America's Player of the Year. I firmlly belive he could step in right now and at least currently put up a signifiigantly better line than Taveras. Maybe even Bruce.

For the rest of 2009...

vs rhp:
RF Bruce
CF Dickerson
LF Heissey, Nix or Gomes

vs lhp:
RF Bruce or Dickerson (whoever is hitting lefties better)
CF Heissey
LF Gomes

Basically a 4 headed outfielder monster with Nix getting an occasional start to keep his bat sharp.

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 03:27 PM
No no no. Heisey sucks. I read it right here on this thread.

In fact you probably read that Heisey had 5 tools right here as well. The issue is, which of Heisey's tools are plus? Thats where you hear that there are 0, although I think if he continues this season along his hittability tool may indeed be there.

Redmachine2003
07-11-2009, 04:05 PM
So I take it Dougdirt your not a heisey fan.

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 04:15 PM
So I take it Dougdirt your not a heisey fan.

I am a Heisey fan. Not sure where you get that impression.

membengal
07-11-2009, 04:36 PM
I am a Heisey fan. Not sure where you get that impression.

You're joking, right? Ever since Heisey passed Stubbs, you've been Senor Passive Aggressive about the situation. In fact, you joined in on the ridiculous argument saying he should stay in AA because he had a normal stretch there. Glad the Reds moved him up, because he sure has been overmatched at AAA...

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 05:13 PM
You're joking, right? Ever since Heisey passed Stubbs, you've been Senor Passive Aggressive about the situation. In fact, you joined in on the ridiculous argument saying he should stay in AA because he had a normal stretch there. Glad the Reds moved him up, because he sure has been overmatched at AAA...
Passed him? Hmm. I was unaware there was some official ranking somewhere that was the be all end all. Want to point me in that direction so I can check out the rankings?

As for the Heisey in AA comment, you certainly missed the context. What I said was IF pitchers had found a weakness in his swing (in June his strikeout rate was 20.4%. In April and May it was 6.5%. That means he swung and missed more than 3 times more in June than the previous two months), it may be best for him to stay there and close it up. I also said if it was a mechanical thing that was on him and not the pitchers, then send him to AAA since the coaches there can just correct the issue. It was never about him not being overmatched, it was about fixing a potential problem at a level where the pitchers may have known about a weakness. If that was an issue, the pitchers in AAA wouldn't know it right away and that would delay fixing the problem even further until after those pitchers figured it out.

Thats what I said. What you got out of what I said was obviously something different than what I meant.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1904279&postcount=53


Again, you are missing the context. Stubbs always struck out 20% of the time. If guys found something to exploit on him, he either hid it very well by not varying in his K rate, or he adjusted to it quickly. Heisey on the flip side has always been a low K type of guy, incredibly low this year, then all of a sudden in June over 90 PA, his K rate TRIPLED. Something is going on. If its the pitchers finding a weakness, he should stay in AA until he can correct that weakness. If its something he is doing, perhaps a timing issue or a flaw in his swing he didn't have before for whatever reason that can be easily fixed... send him to AAA. But if its the pitchers exploiting something in his swing, he should stay at AA until he gets back to where he was before (at least to his pre 2009 April/May strikeout rate).

nemesis
07-11-2009, 05:23 PM
Problem is Stubbs has soooo many people who have claimed his K's would decrease. His power would develop and his Average would go up. Doug included. All these people have put alot of time arguing these points. Instead some no name prospect, from some college in PA out preforms him at every level every year. At Billings head to head at Dayton head to head at Sarasota head to head. Put up better numbers at Carolina than Stubbs did at Chattanoga. Now at Louisville he is putting up better numbers in a harder spot. SO yeah I can definatly see where Stubbs projects to be a better MLB Player...:confused::rolleyes:

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 05:29 PM
Problem is Stubbs has soooo many people who have claimed his K's would decrease. His power would develop and his Average would go up. Doug included. All these people have put alot of time arguing these points. Instead some no name prospect, from some college in PA out preforms him at every level every year. At Billings head to head at Dayton head to head at Sarasota head to head. Put up better numbers at Carolina than Stubbs did at Chattanoga. Now at Louisville he is putting up better numbers in a harder spot. SO yeah I can definatly see where Stubbs projects to be a better MLB Player...:confused::rolleyes:

Stubbs may never outhit Heisey. The power hasn't developed for whatever reason (shortened swing may be one reason, trying to just hit line drives could be another.... both of which are from Stubbs mouth, not anyone elses). Stubbs value has always been in his defense though, that is what made him a special prospect. For those who have watched both will tell you, there is a significant difference between Heisey and Stubbs in the field. Its not that Heisey isn't good in center. He is fine. Stubbs is just on a different level and that is why he remains ever so slightly ahead in my opinion. Heisey has a good chance to outhit Stubbs, especially if the power remains dry. I am simply not sure thats going to make up the difference between the defense though.

And for the record.... Stubb's K's have decreased.

RED VAN HOT
07-11-2009, 05:31 PM
In another thread I made the statement that Heisey is a game changer. I had second thoughts concerning whether there was any proof or whether the statement was rooted in emotional hyperbole.

I know this is a small sample and that there were other things going on with the rosters of the two teams, and it is a small sample, and all of the other things that make the findings fall short of proof. Still, here is what I calculated.

CAROLINA WITH HEISEY SINCE HEISEY LEFT
W-L 38-36 5-8
Team BA .261 .222


LOUISVILLE WITH HEISEY BEFORE HEISEY ARRIVED
W-L 9-5 40-34
Team BA .271 .255

It is fool's play to attempt to predict ML performance solely on the basis of minor league statistics. At each level a player is exposed to pitching that he has not seen before. I can say, however, that Heisey has certainly learned each level very quickly. I also notice that as his power has developed he has been moved from 1st to 2nd and now to 3rd in the batting order. Reds coaching seems to believe that the power is real. Give him 30 days at Louisville and bring him up.

Personally, I would like to see Heisey in LF and Stubbs/Dickerson in CF. Heisey has played all three outfield positions at Louisville. He could even take some starts in RF against tough LHPs.

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 05:33 PM
Reds coaching seems to believe that the power is real.


Having watched him over the last week I tend to agree to an extent that the power is real. Coming into the season I thought he was a 10-15 HR guy. Now I think he is probably more likely a 15-20 HR guy in the majors.

GOYA
07-11-2009, 05:51 PM
I know this is a small sample and that there were other things going on with the rosters of the two teams, and it is a small sample, and all of the other things that make the findings fall short of proof. Still, here is what I calculated.

Don't forget Heisey and Stewart both moved to Louisville at about the same time. Plus, Louisville lost Homer around then. Too many variables exist to really make a comparison. But it might be said that Heisey is the most potent bat in Louisville right now, with the possible exception of old man Barker.

One thing I failed to mention earlier was a throw Heisey made trying to get someone at the plate from RF. From seeing that one throw, I don't think Stubbs' arm is as strong. The throw was off line but Heisey appears to have a cannon.

Sea Ray
07-11-2009, 05:52 PM
I think that is about right and superior to what I expect from Stubbs which is more of a .260/.340/.380/.720 line with 5/30 HR/SB combo. That is probably starting caliber but not my cup of tea. Stubbs needs to add some pop. He would be the top poistion player that I'd be looking to move to add help elsewhere.

That sounds very Cesar Geronimo-like. What's wrong with that?

mth123
07-11-2009, 06:13 PM
That sounds very Cesar Geronimo-like. What's wrong with that?

Not a thing if its 1975. In the era of juiced balls, juiced players, postage stamp strike zones and postage stamp ballparks, I want power in my outfielders. Even in CF, some power is needed. The Big Red Machine was an offensive powerhouse with guys like Geronimo and Griffey in the OF, but they had Hall of Fame players at traditionally weak hitting Catcher and 2B spots to compensate. I want all the OF to be decent players on offense. Even a defense first spot like CF needs to hit double digit HR and OPS in the .775 range or better unless a team is getting exceptional offense from catcher and the MI. I just don't see it with Stubbs. Not enough power and not enough contact. In the majors that combo is likely to lead to his walks dropping off as well.

dougdirt
07-11-2009, 06:31 PM
Not a thing if its 1975. In the era of juiced balls, juiced players, postage stamp strike zones and postage stamp ballparks, I want poer in my outfielders. Even in CF, some power is needed. The Big Red Machine was an offensive powerhouse with guys like Geronimo and Griffey in the OF, but they had Hall of Fame players at traditionally weak hitting Catcher and 2B spots to compensate. I want all the OF to be decent players on offense. Even a defense first spot like CF needs to hit double digit HR and OPS in the .775 range or better unless a team is getting exceptional offense from catcher and the MI. I just don't see it with Stubbs. Not enough power and not enough contact. In the majors that combo is likely to lead to his walks dropping off as well.
Why does a guy have to have double digit HR's if he can OPS .775? 5 HR's, 40 doubles and 5 triples isn't good enough?

mth123
07-11-2009, 07:27 PM
Why does a guy have to have double digit HR's if he can OPS .775? 5 HR's, 40 doubles and 5 triples isn't good enough?

Maybe, I don't see Stubbs doing it though.

TRF
07-11-2009, 07:45 PM
Why does a guy have to have double digit HR's if he can OPS .775? 5 HR's, 40 doubles and 5 triples isn't good enough?


Maybe, I don't see Stubbs doing it though.

I'm not backpedalling one bit on Stubbs, but I can see him doing this. Problem is, I see it as his ceiling. I see it as his best seasons, and I see him struggling against superior MLB pitching. The best comparison to make is on the Reds right now. Does anyone really think Stubbs will out OBP Dickerson for his career? He certainly won't out SLG him. Defense might be a wash in CF.

Now for Heisey. Will he out OBP Dickerson? Maybe. I'll answer more definitively at the end of the AAA season. will he out SLG Dickerson? Hands down I say yes. Defense in CF, well from all accounts, he might be a tick below. A tick.

So to sum up, Stubbs is the better prospect IF the Reds are shopping him. 1st Round picks with tools and success in the high minors have tremendous value. If the Reds are intent on keeping both players, then it's Heisey.

nemesis
07-11-2009, 08:24 PM
Doug,

Let me ask one question on Stubbs.

You say his Defense is GG caliber. Is his glove and addtional 30 SB's worth more than say an addtional .070 to .100 of slugging over the course of a season that Heisley will put up over him if their OBP is equal? Is Heisley's D that much less? Is it closerto Tavaeras or closer to Bruce?

Scrap Irony
07-11-2009, 09:17 PM
For those who have watched both will tell you, there is a significant difference between Heisey and Stubbs in the field.

I've seen both and, though Stubbs is better in CF, it's not like Heisey is bad. He's a plus CF, with very good range and a great arm. He's Grady Sizemore-esque with the glove, while Stubbs is early career Torii Hunter. In Cincinnati, with Bruce likely in RF and another plus defensive player in LF (as is Jocketty's MO), Heisey makes much more sense, as he's clearly (by a fairly wide margin) the better offensive player.

GIDP
07-11-2009, 09:26 PM
Were about to find out some more about one or the other after Bruces injury. If I was a betting man Id probably rather see Heisey as it is right now because of the bat and us needing a RFer.

reds44
07-11-2009, 09:34 PM
Were about to find out some more about one or the other after Bruces injury. If I was a betting man Id probably rather see Heisey as it is right now because of the bat and us needing a RFer.
Neither Stubbs will Heisey will play if they're called up, except against the occasional lefty. Dusty will play Nix/Gomes, Taveras, and Dickerson.

GIDP
07-11-2009, 09:35 PM
Neither Stubbs will Heisey will play if they're called up, except against the occasional lefty. Dusty will play Nix/Gomes, Taveras, and Dickerson.

Well obviously :laugh:

But still if they were going to call up a outfielder id rather have Heisey because they need to repalce a RF.

fearofpopvol1
07-11-2009, 10:22 PM
I've seen both and, though Stubbs is better in CF, it's not like Heisey is bad. He's a plus CF, with very good range and a great arm. He's Grady Sizemore-esque with the glove, while Stubbs is early career Torii Hunter. In Cincinnati, with Bruce likely in RF and another plus defensive player in LF (as is Jocketty's MO), Heisey makes much more sense, as he's clearly (by a fairly wide margin) the better offensive player.

I think this is a good assessment honestly.

krm1580
07-11-2009, 11:00 PM
Stubbs is a very patient hitter. He sees a lot of pitches, which results in quite a few strikeouts, but also plenty of walks. His swing isn't long really, but its not short either. His pitch recognition is fine, as is his bat speed. He is just a very Adam Dunn esque type of guy in the sense that he is going to see a lot of pitches waiting for 'his pitch'.

Dunn esque is probably a bad description. For starters he would hit 40HRs a year as opposed to Stubbs who is on a pace for 4. The part I am more concerned about is I considered Dunn to be a passive hitter, not a patient hitter. A patient hitter, or selective hitter looks for a pitch that they can do something with and hammers it, a passive hitter is a guy that is up there looking for a walk. Dunn despite his power let a lot of meatballs fly by without taking a whack.

If Stubbs is selective and taking a swing at only pitches he can do something with and is OPSing .750 in AAA with only hitting 1HR for every 137.5 at bats I have no confidence he will be a productive major league player.

LoganBuck
07-11-2009, 11:57 PM
The minute Drew Stubbs steps on a major league field, he is a top 5 defensive CF in the game. The attempts to put Heisey in the same category are just that. Attempts. Heisey is a fine defensive player, but he is not in the same category. Stubbs is that good with the glove.

That being said, with Jay Bruce out, I would bring Heisey up. The Reds need some slugging, now if Willy Taveras had been the one that was injured I would want Stubbs. Heisey is the better fit right now. Stubbs is a bad fit for this situation.

aubashbrother
07-12-2009, 12:03 AM
yea but the minute Stubbs is called up ( if its him ) do you honestly think he will be playing cf. dusty will stick him in a corner

LoganBuck
07-12-2009, 12:08 AM
yea but the minute Stubbs is called up ( if its him ) do you honestly think he will be playing cf. dusty will stick him in a corner

My hope is that IslandRed is on to something that if Stubbs is finally the speed and defense CF that Dusty craves, a certain someone will find himself marginalized and hopefully out of a job.

GIDP
07-12-2009, 12:24 AM
My hope is that IslandRed is on to something that if Stubbs is finally the speed and defense CF that Dusty craves, a certain someone will find himself marginalized and hopefully out of a job.

Lets not kid ourselves.

Homer Bailey
07-12-2009, 01:54 AM
My hope is that IslandRed is on to something that if Stubbs is finally the speed and defense CF that Dusty craves, a certain someone will find himself marginalized and hopefully out of a job.

With any other person on the planet as our manager (aside from Willy's dad), I would say we have a good chance of this. But Dusty Baker is the manager. Watch McDonald get called up. Watch.

reds44
07-12-2009, 02:01 AM
My hope is that IslandRed is on to something that if Stubbs is finally the speed and defense CF that Dusty craves, a certain someone will find himself marginalized and hopefully out of a job.
And what makes you think this when he didn't make the move with Dickerson?

TheNext44
07-12-2009, 02:35 AM
And what makes you think this when he didn't make the move with Dickerson?

Stubbs has near Taveras like speed. That is what Dusty is obsessed with. A CF with speed who can lead off.

Not sure that Dusty will put Stubbs in CF over Taveras, but he is more likely to do that than with Dickerson.

Screwball
07-12-2009, 04:10 AM
Stubbs has near Taveras like speed. That is what Dusty is obsessed with. A CF with speed who can lead off.

Not sure that Dusty will put Stubbs in CF over Taveras, but he is more likely to do that than with Dickerson.


How does that not apply to Dickerson?

TheNext44
07-12-2009, 04:54 AM
How does that not apply to Dickerson?

Dickerson does not have "leadoff" speed. Dusty likes a leadoff hitter who wrecks havoc on the basepaths. Dickerson will steal a base or two, but that's not what Dusty is looking for.

Not agreeing with it, just reporting what I've read.

dougdirt
07-12-2009, 05:58 AM
I've seen both and, though Stubbs is better in CF, it's not like Heisey is bad. He's a plus CF, with very good range and a great arm. He's Grady Sizemore-esque with the glove, while Stubbs is early career Torii Hunter. In Cincinnati, with Bruce likely in RF and another plus defensive player in LF (as is Jocketty's MO), Heisey makes much more sense, as he's clearly (by a fairly wide margin) the better offensive player.

I think you are overrating Heisey's defense a bit. Heisey can play CF, no question about it. He isn't a guy who is going to hurt you out there. Stubbs is just on a completely different level than Heisey is. Its nothing against Heisey, Stubbs is just that good. He is the best defensive CFer in the minors and thats just about universally agreed upon. Heisey has never been rated as a plus defender, just as a good one.


Dunn esque is probably a bad description. For starters he would hit 40HRs a year as opposed to Stubbs who is on a pace for 4. The part I am more concerned about is I considered Dunn to be a passive hitter, not a patient hitter. A patient hitter, or selective hitter looks for a pitch that they can do something with and hammers it, a passive hitter is a guy that is up there looking for a walk. Dunn despite his power let a lot of meatballs fly by without taking a whack.

If Stubbs is selective and taking a swing at only pitches he can do something with and is OPSing .750 in AAA with only hitting 1HR for every 137.5 at bats I have no confidence he will be a productive major league player.

You certainly didn't read my post. I said Dunn esque in the sense that he is very patient. Heck, I think both players may in fact be patient to a fault. While the end results aren't the same with the two players, how they get to that end result is fairly similar. They wait until late in the count a whole lot before swinging the bat.

redsfandan
07-12-2009, 06:29 AM
I think you are overrating Heisey's defense a bit. Heisey can play CF, no question about it. He isn't a guy who is going to hurt you out there. Stubbs is just on a completely different level than Heisey is. Its nothing against Heisey, Stubbs is just that good. He is the best defensive CFer in the minors and thats just about universally agreed upon. ...
Is he really that good defensively that pretty much everyone thinks he's better than anyone else in all of the minors?

LoganBuck
07-12-2009, 08:14 AM
Is he really that good defensively that pretty much everyone thinks he's better than anyone else in all of the minors?

Yes, just to point out a little something about Drew Stubbs, while everyone on here has bemoaned his batting statistics every step of the way, sometimes deservedly so, he has still managed to make an All Star team at every level. Why? Because he is a game changer in CF. Defense is what he does best. There isn't some secret Drew Stubbs appreciation society that has an unholy cabal to get him in All Star games because he was a first round pick.

It isn't a slight at Heisey. Stubbs is that good.

GIDP
07-12-2009, 08:31 AM
Dickerson does not have "leadoff" speed. Dusty likes a leadoff hitter who wrecks havoc on the basepaths. Dickerson will steal a base or two, but that's not what Dusty is looking for.

Not agreeing with it, just reporting what I've read.

Meanwhile Dickerson has stole 5 bases and been caught once since may 24th. Willy on the other hand is 4 out of 6.

Dusty sees what he wants to see.

mth123
07-12-2009, 09:46 AM
Yes, just to point out a little something about Drew Stubbs, while everyone on here has bemoaned his batting statistics every step of the way, sometimes deservedly so, he has still managed to make an All Star team at every level. Why? Because he is a game changer in CF. Defense is what he does best. There isn't some secret Drew Stubbs appreciation society that has an unholy cabal to get him in All Star games because he was a first round pick.

It isn't a slight at Heisey. Stubbs is that good.

Corey Patterson was an elite defensive CF. Probably every bit as good as Stubbs. You gotta hit.

Grande Donkey
07-12-2009, 11:31 AM
I wouldn't classify Patterson as elite defensively, but that's just me.


Heisey is batting 6th and playing LF in the futures game.

dougdirt
07-12-2009, 02:21 PM
Corey Patterson was an elite defensive CF. Probably every bit as good as Stubbs. You gotta hit.

Sure, and when Patterson did hit for a few seasons he was a fairly valuable player. Pattersons approach however didn't lead to much at the plate because of how aggressive he was and it led to his inability to reach first base.

fearofpopvol1
07-12-2009, 03:24 PM
Sure, and when Patterson did hit for a few seasons he was a fairly valuable player. Pattersons approach however didn't lead to much at the plate because of how aggressive he was and it led to his inability to reach first base.

That's a pretty good point. Stubbs does at least have good plate discipline.

The question at hand here though really is does Stubbs' defense and less-than-amazing bat trump Heisey's much superior bat with just his "good" defense?

Is VORP available for minor league players?

dougdirt
07-12-2009, 03:34 PM
That's a pretty good point. Stubbs does at least have good plate discipline.

The question at hand here though really is does Stubbs' defense and less-than-amazing bat trump Heisey's much superior bat with just his "good" defense?

Is VORP available for minor league players?

For starters, VORP for MLB players isn't the best option out there to begin with. And for minor leaguers its just simply not a good tool if it did exist because of the different playing fields and talent levels between the different leagues.

And its a tough question. At this point I don't know if Stubbs would be worth more than Heisey today. However I do think it will be in the long run. I still see Stubbs developing the power to be at least a 10-15 HR guy.

Mario-Rijo
07-13-2009, 12:47 AM
For starters, VORP for MLB players isn't the best option out there to begin with. And for minor leaguers its just simply not a good tool if it did exist because of the different playing fields and talent levels between the different leagues.

And its a tough question. At this point I don't know if Stubbs would be worth more than Heisey today. However I do think it will be in the long run. I still see Stubbs developing the power to be at least a 10-15 HR guy.

I think Stubbs already has the power to hit 20 HR's in the majors, it's not even about developing power. It's all about his swing and mechanics therein. That's why he is streaky, inconsistent mechanics (leading to poor bat control) or his bat is a bit slow. Some guys can somewhat consistently square up a pitch and he cannot for one of those above reasons. To his credit he has tried to do things over his minor league stay to correct the problem but someone just hasn't figured out the cure for his ills yet and maybe never will. He did not do any better in his career than the stretch where he was forced to choke up by Donnie Scott when he managed the Dragons. For an extended period of time he hit for average, had enough pop and didn't strike out a whole bunch. While he maintained that approach he was just what we hoped he could be. That right there lead me to believe he has poor bat control and/or bat speed. If it's bat control it should eventually get fixed, if it's bat speed ya might as well trade him now.

Scrap Irony
07-13-2009, 01:39 AM
Stubbs has hit two home runs all year. Last season, he hit seven. He's hit 27 homers in four years, for an average of just less than seven per year.

He also has a 25% K rate.

Why would a major league pitcher ever pitch around him? He simply won't hurt you much even if he does hit the ball.

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 02:44 AM
Stubbs has hit two home runs all year. Last season, he hit seven. He's hit 27 homers in four years, for an average of just less than seven per year.

He also has a 25% K rate.

Why would a major league pitcher ever pitch around him? He simply won't hurt you much even if he does hit the ball.

Because guys can't throw strikes at an extremely high rate for starters, so a guy who doesn't swing at pitches out of the zone often is going to get his fair share of walks. His K rate isn't 25%. He has 73 strikeouts in 331 PA. Thats 22.05% this year. Pitchers still need to pitch to him carefully because he tends to get on base often and has a ton of speed. While he may be a guy who will hit 40 doubles and 5-10 HR's, a guy with his type of speed certainly can hurt you with those numbers.

camisadelgolf
07-13-2009, 03:11 AM
Drew Stubbs has power--he just doesn't hit a lot of homeruns. As his body grows, a lot of his doubles will turn into homeruns. That's also not to mention that every time he steals a base, it's almost as if he's turning a single into a double. In fact, if singling and stealing counted as a double, his slugging would be at .470.

TheNext44
07-13-2009, 03:16 AM
Stubbs has hit two home runs all year. Last season, he hit seven. He's hit 27 homers in four years, for an average of just less than seven per year.

He also has a 25% K rate.

Why would a major league pitcher ever pitch around him? He simply won't hurt you much even if he does hit the ball.

Pitchers pitch around a guy who can drive in runs with men on base. All extra base hits drive in runs. Stubbs hits his fair share of XBH, one every 11 AB's. That's about the same as someone like Jimmy Rollins or Brandon Phillips.

Granted, he won't get pitched around like he's a 30 HR guy, but he will see more walks than a singles hitter like Taveras.

Scrap Irony
07-13-2009, 03:20 AM
Major league pitchers throw strikes better than AAA pitchers. And they're certain to notice that a light-hitting guy with a 22.05 or 25% K Rate (fangraphs says it's 25.1, actually, but use ABs not PAs) and no power can't hurt them.

He'd be a fine eighth place hitter on a team with enough offense to carry him. In his career year, he's likely to hit 275-280/350/400 with a ton of steals and GG defense. And that has a lot of value. But that's his peak. He's due at least a couple 230/310/350 years before he adjusts. If he ever does.

Heisey, OTOH, has more pop and much better bat-on-ball skills. He'll take the walk. (three percent difference between he and Stubbs.) He won't K much. (Ten percent difference between he and Stubbs.) He'll park a mistake pitch. (14 more than Stubbs.) He simply has more offensive tools.

And the idea of filling out is ridiculous. Stubbs is a 24-year-old man. He's been playing big-time athletics since he was 18 at least. He's done filling out or growing up. His power is as powerful as it's gonna get.

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 03:42 AM
And the idea of filling out is ridiculous. Stubbs is a 24-year-old man. He's been playing big-time athletics since he was 18 at least. He's done filling out or growing up. His power is as powerful as it's gonna get.

Stubbs is also a 24 year old that has retooled his swing twice in the past 3 years. While he may be done 'filling out' that doesn't mean he is sapped out on power. Funny how Heisey all of a sudden found his power at age 24 but Stubbs simply can't because he is a 24 year old man.

BTW, Stubbs is on pace for over 40 doubles this year in an MLB season. We can argue about the extent of Stubbs 'power' but lets not talk about him like he has the same power output of Willy Taveras either.

redsfandan
07-13-2009, 04:06 AM
I think Stubbs already has the power to hit 20 HR's in the majors, it's not even about developing power. It's all about his swing and mechanics therein. That's why he is streaky, inconsistent mechanics (leading to poor bat control) or his bat is a bit slow. Some guys can somewhat consistently square up a pitch and he cannot for one of those above reasons. To his credit he has tried to do things over his minor league stay to correct the problem but someone just hasn't figured out the cure for his ills yet and maybe never will. He did not do any better in his career than the stretch where he was forced to choke up by Donnie Scott when he managed the Dragons. For an extended period of time he hit for average, had enough pop and didn't strike out a whole bunch. While he maintained that approach he was just what we hoped he could be. That right there lead me to believe he has poor bat control and/or bat speed. If it's bat control it should eventually get fixed, if it's bat speed ya might as well trade him now.

Stubbs is also a 24 year old that has retooled his swing twice in the past 3 years. While he may be done 'filling out' that doesn't mean he is sapped out on power. Funny how Heisey all of a sudden found his power at age 24 but Stubbs simply can't because he is a 24 year old man.

BTW, Stubbs is on pace for over 40 doubles this year in an MLB season. We can argue about the extent of Stubbs 'power' but lets not talk about him like he has the same power output of Willy Taveras either.
If Donnie Scott forced him to choke up and it worked why does he keep messing with his swing?

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 04:12 AM
If Donnie Scott forced him to choke up and it worked why does he keep messing with his swing?

Drew choked up on the bat for less than 2 weeks. He continued hitting after he stopped choking up. He kept messing with his swing to cut down the strikeouts. It has worked to that goal.

TRF
07-13-2009, 10:32 AM
Any in pro Stubbs camp would argue that Stubbs has power because of the number of doubles, saying that those some of those doubles will turn into HR's at some point. I'd be inclined to agree if he had 7-8 HR's right now. He has 2. If he's projected for 40 doubles, then let's project the HR's as well. ... carry the one, no wait. it's 4. 4 HR's. Now how many of those doubles are because of gap power, and how many are due to his extraordinary speed?

At this point I've seen enough development to believe Stubbs will have some kind of career, but let's be realistic. Stubbs is power deficient.


Stubbs is also a 24 year old that has retooled his swing twice in the past 3 years. While he may be done 'filling out' that doesn't mean he is sapped out on power. Funny how Heisey all of a sudden found his power at age 24 but Stubbs simply can't because he is a 24 year old man.

Ok that's false and you know it. Heisey has always shown that he has power. He's out SLG'd Stubbs at EVERY LEVEL and has shown a progression of power. His SLG has increased significantly every year. Remember, they were teammates in 2007 and had almost identical seasons. The real difference between the two past the fact that Heisey's power numbers have been progressing, is their development. Heisey was on a more normal development track, while Stubbs, likely due to his draft slot was fast tracked in 2008. Had the situations been reversed we might be seeing Heisey struggling like Stubbs has been the last month. This I blame squarely on the Reds, and especially Jocketty and whoever the head of minor league development is.

Stubbs 2009 season hasn't been really good. In fact he's had 1 good month, May, one terrible month, April and a horrific June. July is shaping up decently so far. I hope he bounces back in the second half. I'd say his major league comp might be Nyjer Morgan at this point, and that may be his ceiling.

GOYA
07-13-2009, 11:33 AM
Any in pro Stubbs camp would argue that Stubbs has power because of the number of doubles, saying that those some of those doubles will turn into HR's at some point.

Then I'd say show me the doubles that were off the wall. At least three of his doubles were simply because of speed and aggressive baserunning. Most were shots down a line or a line drive in the gap. Stubbs' HR against the Yankees was pulled, wind aided and barely got over the wall. The is no valid argument to say that Stubbs has power at all. Over his last 34 ABs, he has 1 extra base hit, a double. He has 9 Ks to go along with it.

Benihana
07-13-2009, 11:37 AM
Stubbs is Taveras with a better glove and better plate discipline. I don't think he'll ever have Mike Cameron or Torii Hunter-type power. He is more Felix Pie than either of those guys.

Heisey has surpassed him at this point in my book, and I think most other pros' books as well.

bucksfan2
07-13-2009, 12:15 PM
Heisey isn't a MLB #3 hitter. He just doesn't have that kind of power. MLB #3 hitters are 30+ HR guys. Heisey just doesn't have that. Heisey could be a very good #2 guy though with some pop and excellent bat control.

Why not?

I don't really like expectations based upon slots. To me the #3 hole hitter is the best hitter on your team. Heisey may never have the power to hit 30+ hrs in a year, but if he can hit, and hit doubles, at GABP he could average 20+ hrs a year. Similar to what Larkin did as a Red during his career. He may not be a 3 hole hitter as a Red because of what Votto brings to the plate.

I get the notion that your #3 hole hitter should hit for power, but if you can get on base, hit the gaps you can become a very good 3 hole hitter. For reference, Chase Utley, one of the better hitters in the game, and the current 3 hole hitter for the Phillies has had 30+ hrs twice in his career.

camisadelgolf
07-13-2009, 12:24 PM
Why not?

I don't really like expectations based upon slots. To me the #3 hole hitter is the best hitter on your team. Heisey may never have the power to hit 30+ hrs in a year, but if he can hit, and hit doubles, at GABP he could average 20+ hrs a year. Similar to what Larkin did as a Red during his career. He may not be a 3 hole hitter as a Red because of what Votto brings to the plate.

I get the notion that your #3 hole hitter should hit for power, but if you can get on base, hit the gaps you can become a very good 3 hole hitter. For reference, Chase Utley, one of the better hitters in the game, and the current 3 hole hitter for the Phillies has had 30+ hrs twice in his career.
In a Reds lineup, the #3 hitter isn't going to get many opportunities to drive in runs.
OBP NAME
.288 Willy Taveras
.302 Jerry Hairston, Jr.
.256 Alex Gonzalez

Kc61
07-13-2009, 12:27 PM
Sometimes a powerful hitter learns to shorten his swing to make more contact. It happens frequently. Look at Dickerson -- his slugging output is down this year yet his OBP is good and his strikeouts are lower.

It's pretty obvious that Stubbs wasn't getting it done with a power swing so he's probably cut down on the swing, his power is reduced, his strikeouts are down, he's probably making more contact and his BA and OBP are now pretty good.

This change was wise for Stubbs, he's shaping up as a good OBP guy, but it's unclear if he will ever use his power in the way he used to. He may well be a .360 OBP and .390 SLG guy, with good defense.

Heisey seems like a better hitter based on the numbers so far. Probably not as good defensively as Stubbs. Given the Reds desire for top footspeed in centerfield, my guess is Heisey will be a corner outfielder if with the Reds and will have to hit quite a bit to stay there.

GIDP
07-13-2009, 12:30 PM
Maybe its just me but I dont see Taveras being any faster than Jay Bruce when it comes to running after a ball. Taveras down the baseline sure but being in the field? I just dont see it. Then again I just saw Bruce from the time he spent in center last year.

TRF
07-13-2009, 12:38 PM
Sometimes a powerful hitter learns to shorten his swing to make more contact. It happens frequently. Look at Dickerson -- his slugging output is down this year yet his OBP is good and his strikeouts are lower.

It's pretty obvious that Stubbs wasn't getting it done with a power swing so he's probably cut down on the swing, his power is reduced, his strikeouts are down, he's probably making more contact and his BA and OBP are now pretty good.

This change was wise for Stubbs, he's shaping up as a good OBP guy, but it's unclear if he will ever use his power in the way he used to. He may well be a .360 OBP and .390 SLG guy, with good defense.

Heisey seems like a better hitter based on the numbers so far. Probably not as good defensively as Stubbs. Given the Reds desire for top footspeed in centerfield, my guess is Heisey will be a corner outfielder if with the Reds and will have to hit quite a bit to stay there.

Drew Stubbs over his last 97 AB's according to minorleaguesplits.com
.206 .313 .227 .540

No. he really isn't making more contact. in fact, he had a pretty normal BABIP in june and was awful. That isn't bad luck, it's just being well, bad.

bucksfan2
07-13-2009, 12:38 PM
Major league pitchers throw strikes better than AAA pitchers. And they're certain to notice that a light-hitting guy with a 22.05 or 25% K Rate (fangraphs says it's 25.1, actually, but use ABs not PAs) and no power can't hurt them.

He'd be a fine eighth place hitter on a team with enough offense to carry him. In his career year, he's likely to hit 275-280/350/400 with a ton of steals and GG defense. And that has a lot of value. But that's his peak. He's due at least a couple 230/310/350 years before he adjusts. If he ever does.

Heisey, OTOH, has more pop and much better bat-on-ball skills. He'll take the walk. (three percent difference between he and Stubbs.) He won't K much. (Ten percent difference between he and Stubbs.) He'll park a mistake pitch. (14 more than Stubbs.) He simply has more offensive tools.

And the idea of filling out is ridiculous. Stubbs is a 24-year-old man. He's been playing big-time athletics since he was 18 at least. He's done filling out or growing up. His power is as powerful as it's gonna get.

If you groove a fastball major league hitters will punish it. Its the reason why power deficient hitters will have a handful of hrs every year. A light hitting still can do damage if a ball is grooved over the plate. He may not knock the ball out of the park, but if he gets on base he can turn a single into a double or a double into a triple.

FWIW I don't think Stubbs will ever OBP as low as .310. In fact I see him becoming a .350 at worst player who will have a tremendous amount of value as the lead off hitter.

Kc61
07-13-2009, 01:02 PM
No. he really isn't making more contact. in fact, he had a pretty normal BABIP in june and was awful. That isn't bad luck, it's just being well, bad.

By my rough calculations, Stubbs' K rate has declined from 28.5 percent to 25.3 percent over the last two years. I think that shows more contact, although it is still a high K rate for a leadoff type hitter.

flyer85
07-13-2009, 01:09 PM
Heisey has made the jump that people were wanting Stubbs to make(legit power). The quality of defense takes a big leap at the major league level and some of the 2Bs and 3Bs turn into outs. HRs are harder to catch.

Stubbs 2008 - 417 SLG 2009 - 365 SLG
Heisey 2008 - 447 SLG 2009 - 585 SLG

Without power there is a good chance that Stubbs BBs will dry up against major league pitching.

BTW, Willy T has a decent BB rate in minors ... it only completely went south once he hit the majors where pitchers have much better command (in general)

GOYA
07-13-2009, 01:10 PM
It's pretty obvious that Stubbs wasn't getting it done with a power swing so he's probably cut down on the swing, his power is reduced, his strikeouts are down, he's probably making more contact and his BA and OBP are now pretty good.

His strikeouts are at the rate of a power hitter. That is the thing that is hurting him as far as looking like he could help the Reds. He has a pretty good eye but tends be a little bit tentative. Meaning he sometimes takes good pitches. That also translates into more walks so it's not all bad but it also helps to add to his K rate. Pitchers have to throw him strikes but in the bigs, generally pitchers can do that pretty well.

Stubbs has gone through slumps and times that he's been a terror at the plate. Until he can hit more consistently, he is not what the Reds need. Even with his superior defense and ability to steal bases. The Reds badly need hitters. That means Heisey, not Stubbs. At least right now.

Benihana
07-13-2009, 01:15 PM
Stubbs = Stillwell
Heisey = Larkin

Thoughts?

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 01:20 PM
Stubbs = Stillwell
Heisey = Larkin

Thoughts?

Bad comparison. Stillwell 'hit' in rookie ball and sucked in the minors everywhere else. Stubbs has hit at an acceptable rate everywhere he has been and even good in some places. Heisey never hit like Larkin did at an age that Larkin did it. Larkin beat up AA at age 22. Heisey did it at age 24.

icehole3
07-13-2009, 01:21 PM
Larkin and Stillwell were superior defensively, Im not that sure Heisey is a superior defensive guy, I believe Stubbs is, I do smell what youre cooking though

camisadelgolf
07-13-2009, 01:22 PM
If Stubbs is going to be the Reds' leadoff hitter of the future, he probably won't need much slugging. How often will he be up to bat with Paul Janish and/or Johnny Cueto on the basepaths?

flyer85
07-13-2009, 01:22 PM
Stubbs isn't a guy with a strikeout problem. He isn't Greg Halman or even Adam Dunn in the K department.Stubbs has a higher K rate than Dunn as a minor leaguer

Stubbs 400Ks in 1460ABs = 27.4%
Dunn 270Ks in 1208ABs = 22.3%

Not sure what someone want to with that.

Good chance that Stubb's BB totals with plummet and his K rate will spike.

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 01:30 PM
Stubbs has a higher K rate than Dunn as a minor leaguer

Stubbs 400Ks in 1460ABs = 27.4%
Dunn 270Ks in 1208ABs = 22.3%

Not sure what someone want to with that.

Good chance that Stubb's BB totals with plummet and his K rate will spike.

Career Minor League numbers mean very little. Stubbs will likely strike out in the majors around 140 times a year (full season). He will probably walk 60 times too and contend for legit gold gloves every year.

By the way, K/AB is not the best way to figure out K rate. You ignore the 60-80 times a guy walks in that one per year.

flyer85
07-13-2009, 01:32 PM
Career Minor League numbers mean very little. then why use them at all?

Or just ignore the stuff that doesn't fit a preconception.

flyer85
07-13-2009, 01:33 PM
By the way, K/AB is not the best way to figure out K rate. You ignore the 60-80 times a guy walks in that one per year.
I forgot that Stubbs walks more than Dunn

TRF
07-13-2009, 01:38 PM
Bad comparison. Stillwell 'hit' in rookie ball and sucked in the minors everywhere else. Stubbs has hit at an acceptable rate everywhere he has been and even good in some places. Heisey never hit like Larkin did at an age that Larkin did it. Larkin beat up AA at age 22. Heisey did it at age 24.

No. Stubbs did NOT hit in the FSL. Heisey did.

Stubbs power did not JUMP in AA like you said it would. Heisey's did.

Stubbs is not hitting for anything resembling an acceptable rate at AAA this year. No power whatsoever. Heisey is, though sample for Heisey does play a part. Stubbs "good" rates have all been in very small sample sizes. Last year at AAA, the first week of AA. He was horrendous in the AFL, and pretty much everywhere he spent any significant time. I had hopes in May that he might be turning it around, but I have to stand by my original projection for him... 4th OF/defensive replacement.

seriously, he's Nyjer Morgan.

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 01:41 PM
then why use them at all?

Or just ignore the stuff that doesn't fit a preconception.

Its a lot better to use the last 400-600 PA, as they contain a lot more data worth looking at and using to project than what a guy did 2-3 years ago. Guys are in the minors and their skillsets change over that time. Projecting someone based on an older skillset doesn't make a lot of sense. Would you project Heisey based on what he did in Billings/Dayton or what he has shown in Carolina/Louisville? I would lean a lot more toward Carolina/Louisville because it shows us a bit more of his 'true skill' level. Same with Stubbs. What he did in Dayton/Billings.... not all that relevant in projecting him forward. We have better, more recent data to work with.

GOYA
07-13-2009, 01:50 PM
Just what are we arguing here? Does anyone contend that the Reds would be better off with Stubbs in the OF after the break rather than Heisey?

Personally, I don't think either one will be called up but if I had to chose one, it is no contest.

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 01:51 PM
No. Stubbs did NOT hit in the FSL. Heisey did.

Stubbs had a .772 OPS in Sarasota. The day Drew was promoted, Heisey had .798 OPS. Somehow I can't see 27 points in OPS being the difference between 'hitting' and NOT hitting.



Stubbs power did not JUMP in AA like you said it would. Heisey's did.
Not sure how that is relevant to your comparison at all.



Stubbs is not hitting for anything resembling an acceptable rate at AAA this year. No power whatsoever. Heisey is, though sample for Heisey does play a part. Stubbs "good" rates have all been in very small sample sizes. Last year at AAA, the first week of AA. He was horrendous in the AFL, and pretty much everywhere he spent any significant time. I had hopes in May that he might be turning it around, but I have to stand by my original projection for him... 4th OF/defensive replacement.

seriously, he's Nyjer Morgan.
The power certainly isn't helping Drew's cause, but anytime someone has a .370 OBP I have a hard time suggesting they aren't acceptable at the plate. I think we all want to see more power from Stubbs.

flyer85
07-13-2009, 01:52 PM
seriously, he's Nyjer Morgan.It is still hard to say how he will be perform but without power there is very little upside. However, if he comes to the majors and craters he will have no trade value.

Find some organization enamored with speed and steals and trade him to them ( oops he's already with one )

bubbachunk
07-13-2009, 01:53 PM
I wanna see the rest of the year play out. Heisey has never hit this good. Both prospects are showing progress and going based on just one half of a season is ridiculous.

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 01:54 PM
Just what are we arguing here? Does anyone contend that the Reds would be better off with Stubbs in the OF after the break rather than Heisey?

Personally, I don't think either one will be called up but if I had to chose one, it is no contest.

I think it depends on the situation. If the Reds are calling up someone to play CF (meaning Taveras is going to the bench) then yeah, I might argue Stubbs would be the better choice. The defense needs a center fielder who can go get it and Stubbs can do that better than anyone we have and only Dickerson is even close. If we are calling up someone to play a corner, then you call up Heisey or Frazier. Better bats, not as much need for great defense (although Heisey would provide strong defense in a corner assuming he doesn't have the same issues that Dickerson does where he can't see the ball as well from the corner).

TRF
07-13-2009, 01:54 PM
Its a lot better to use the last 400-600 PA, as they contain a lot more data worth looking at and using to project than what a guy did 2-3 years ago. Guys are in the minors and their skillsets change over that time. Projecting someone based on an older skillset doesn't make a lot of sense. Would you project Heisey based on what he did in Billings/Dayton or what he has shown in Carolina/Louisville? I would lean a lot more toward Carolina/Louisville because it shows us a bit more of his 'true skill' level. Same with Stubbs. What he did in Dayton/Billings.... not all that relevant in projecting him forward. We have better, more recent data to work with.

or...

You could look at how Heisey has progressed since his time at Billings, while Stubbs, offensively has stagnated. His best most complete offensive season was at Dayton in 2007. When he was hurt. Since the end of 2007 he's managed to hit 9 HR's, 3 fewer than he hit at Low A. His SLG% by season since 2006: .406, .414, .417 (combined 3 levels .406, High A, .402 AA, .480 AAA) and it sits at .365 currently. So you tell me... how has he progressed as a player offensively? Oh and his .315 .400 .402 line at AA was due to a ridiculous .408 BABIP that he cannot possibly sustain.

His career BABIP is .356. Is that normal? I'm asking because I do not know the answer.

GIDP
07-13-2009, 02:03 PM
Yea its normal considering his speed

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 02:03 PM
or...

You could look at how Heisey has progressed since his time at Billings, while Stubbs, offensively has stagnated. His best most complete offensive season was at Dayton in 2007. When he was hurt. Since the end of 2007 he's managed to hit 9 HR's, 3 fewer than he hit at Low A. His SLG% by season since 2006: .406, .414, .417 (combined 3 levels .406, High A, .402 AA, .480 AAA) and it sits at .365 currently. So you tell me... how has he progressed as a player offensively? Oh and his .315 .400 .402 line at AA was due to a ridiculous .408 BABIP that he cannot possibly sustain.

His career BABIP is .356. Is that normal? I'm asking because I do not know the answer.
Stubbs hasn't offensively stagnated since Billings, he has just changed the hitter he was. He strikes out less and has a little less power than before.

Heisey really has done one thing since Billings and its add some power, mostly coming from the last 350 PA.

Stubbs has continued to hit line drives at a high rate all the way up, improved his base running and cut down on his strikeout rate.

As for the BABIP, its normal for a guy with wheels in the minor leagues, yes. He likely won't have a BABIP quite that high in the majors, but odds are likely good that he is over the normal .300 because of the speed he brings to the field.

Again, I think you are confusing my position on Stubbs/Heisey. Heisey is the better hitter of the two. He likely will remain that way. I have been on board with that one for the past year and a half. However offense doesn't make a prospect complete. Drew is going to steal a lot more than Heisey is. Drew is going to play better defense than Heisey is at a premium defensive position too.

My stance is that Stubbs could be a better overall prospect than Heisey. Not a better hitter. I will say this, having watched Heisey in Louisville I am starting to believe more and more that his bat is legit (not 1.000 OPS legit, but .800 OPS in the majors legit at least).

GOYA
07-13-2009, 02:06 PM
I think it depends on the situation. If the Reds are calling up someone to play CF (meaning Taveras is going to the bench) then yeah, I might argue Stubbs would be the better choice. The defense needs a center fielder who can go get it and Stubbs can do that better than anyone we have and only Dickerson is even close. If we are calling up someone to play a corner, then you call up Heisey or Frazier. Better bats, not as much need for great defense (although Heisey would provide strong defense in a corner assuming he doesn't have the same issues that Dickerson does where he can't see the ball as well from the corner).

If you were the Reds manager, knowing who you have on your roster now, knowing your club's offense, who would you ask to have sent up?

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 02:08 PM
If you were the Reds manager, knowing who you have on your roster now, knowing your club's offense, who would you ask to have sent up?

Stubbs to play CF, play Dickerson in RF and platoon Gomes/Nix in LF. Taveras would be on the bench if the GM won't release him and he can be a pinch runner/25th man on the bench. Bat Dickerson and Stubbs 1/2 just about every night and let Joey Votto drive them in just about every night.

GOYA
07-13-2009, 02:11 PM
Heisey really has done one thing since Billings and its add some power, mostly coming from the last 350 PA.

At the same time, he has added points to his BA.

dougdirt
07-13-2009, 02:14 PM
At the same time, he has added points to his BA.

I made this June 23rd, so its not completely up to date... but here is Heisey's career by game in graph format
http://redsminorleagues.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/heiseycareerchart.gif

Really, the only thing that has gone up much is his power which spiked upon his AA tear this year.

LoganBuck
07-13-2009, 02:19 PM
If you were the Reds manager, knowing who you have on your roster now, knowing your club's offense, who would you ask to have sent up?

Step 1: Trip Willy Taveras causing a non career threatening, but season ending knee injury. Willy to 60 day disabled list, and then to Kansas City Royals in offseason. (they still do stupid things don't they?)

Step 2: Call up Both Heisey and Stubbs install in lineup with Dickerson manning left.

Step 3: Wait until both slump, and for fans to begin touting Todd Frazier and Chris Vailaika as next Firebrands of Greatness.