PDA

View Full Version : So how did Stubbs look out there?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

RedEye
08-19-2009, 11:39 PM
I can't watch the games so I'm curious if anyone caught Stubbs in his debut this evening. Obviously, we're talking a small sample size, but does he look as-advertised in the field and on the basepaths? How does he carry himself as a player? For some reason, I've always thought he was the type of guy whose game would develop gradually, and I still have hopes that he'll be Mike Cameron all over again. Anyone got visual evidence to support my hopes? :)

HeatherC1212
08-19-2009, 11:45 PM
He is definitely fast (got his first major league hit to shallow right field and ran it into a double) so I think that's as advertised but not much was hit to center field tonight so we didn't get to see him much in the field. One hit went slightly to his left and he couldn't quite catch up to it but that was back in the first inning and he had to be a nervous wreck at that point. I think now that he's gotten his first hit out of the way and his first official game in the books that he'll be more relaxed and ready to go tomorrow. I don't think he had a bad debut but it wasn't too much to write home about either. :)

oneupper
08-19-2009, 11:47 PM
CF just went from trainwreck to meh.

RedEye
08-19-2009, 11:48 PM
CF just went from trainwreck to meh.

Really? You mean defensively or overall?

LoganBuck
08-20-2009, 12:01 AM
CF just went from trainwreck to meh.

Baby steps

If meh can eventually mean replacement level offense with superior defense I scream "Hell Yeah"!

HeatherC1212
08-20-2009, 12:04 AM
Drew had more hits tonight than Willy usually gets in one night, LOL :laugh:

Tornon
08-20-2009, 12:14 AM
Drew had more hits tonight than Willy usually gets in one night, LOL :laugh:

Maybe a week even

corkedbat
08-20-2009, 12:22 AM
Maybe a week even

Actually, Willy has weaks

Patrick Bateman
08-20-2009, 12:24 AM
I liked his composure in his last at-bat. Would have been easy to start hacking down 0-2, but he battled back, and if not for a terrible call he would have walked against Wilson to set-up the 9th inning.

Had a really bad at-bat his 2nd time around against Zito. Took 2 pitches down the middle and then went hacking on a pitch in the dirt. Looked like he took a few strikes for the sake of it, and put himself in a bad position to end the at-bat.

BTW, the flyball heather was talking about was not catchable. He got a good jump on the ball and took a good route, it was just destined for the gap.

WVRedsFan
08-20-2009, 01:03 AM
He looked to be an improvement in CF, but plays below Dickerson FWIW. We now have another 4th outfielder on the roster with superior defensive skills and speed. I don't think he's the solution either short or long term, but the kid will be useful.

dougdirt
08-20-2009, 01:30 AM
Had a really bad at-bat his 2nd time around against Zito. Took 2 pitches down the middle and then went hacking on a pitch in the dirt. Looked like he took a few strikes for the sake of it, and put himself in a bad position to end the at-bat.
That has been my complaint about Stubbs this year. He tends to take good pitches earlier in the count simply to get deeper into counts. I hope someone can help him figure out that walks are good, but don't take meat pitches simply to take pitches.

Patrick Bateman
08-20-2009, 02:09 AM
That has been my complaint about Stubbs this year. He tends to take good pitches earlier in the count simply to get deeper into counts. I hope someone can help him figure out that walks are good, but don't take meat pitches simply to take pitches.

Ya, there's definitely a big difference between being selective, and just taking pitches.

I thought tonight was more of the latter.

redsfandan
08-20-2009, 08:22 AM
I like how he looked in stretching the single into a double.
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6184069&c_id=cin&topic_id=
If he keeps that up and can manage a decent obp we may have something.

membengal
08-20-2009, 08:58 AM
He was 50% of their offense last night, so, he was teh awesome!

osuceltic
08-20-2009, 09:12 AM
Needs to hit the weight room. Upper body looks kind of weak. This never would have happened five years ago.

lollipopcurve
08-20-2009, 09:58 AM
Disagree that he took easily hittable pitches.

In the 2nd AB, the 1st pitch was a fastball on the inside black, down. Ump called it a strike, but on Pujols it's a ball. Then Zito dropped a hammer on the 2nd pitch -- another tough pitch to hit.

I saw a nice, varied approach. 1st AB, he got a hittable fastball on the 1st pitch and took a solid swing at it. Didn't miss it by much on a high fly to left center. Last AB he had a pretty good hack on a hard fastball in for strike 2. Wilson throws very hard, but it looked to me like Stubbs got the bat head out pretty well and fouled it off. As others have noted, he worked what should have been a walk after that. All in all, I thought he acquitted himself well. And if you haven't seen the highlight of his double, check it out. He can really run.

flyer85
08-20-2009, 10:09 AM
tall

nate
08-20-2009, 10:20 AM
He looked like he was really fast taking that double.

I thought that was a bad strike 3 call in the 9th.

bucksfan2
08-20-2009, 10:37 AM
tall

Lanky

RedsManRick
08-20-2009, 10:38 AM
Lanky

That was my thought. He reminds me of Hunter Pence. Though when he runs, it just looks like he's gliding. He covers a ton of ground with those long strides.

bucksfan2
08-20-2009, 10:42 AM
That was my thought. He reminds me of Hunter Pence. Though when he runs, it just looks like he's gliding. He covers a ton of ground with those long strides.

He does remind me of Hunter Pence but looks more natural running. He looks like a runner, just really relaxed when he runs while Pence looks like he is laboring.

traderumor
08-20-2009, 10:43 AM
The speed on the double was impressive. I thought he was chancing it, but he was standing on second when the ball was just coming in. I thought of Hunter Pence as well as I was watching that game.

lollipopcurve
08-20-2009, 11:21 AM
I thought he was chancing it, but he was standing on second when the ball was just coming in.

Agree. When I saw the RF pick up the ball and go to make a throw at 2B, I thought it would be a close play. When I saw him breezing into the bag, I was quite impressed. You can get a glimpse of the speed on the highlight. Effortless.

It remains to be seen just how good his instincts are. So far, so good, but there's a lot left to see. At the same time, it will help Stubbs to get time on the field. He'll adjust to the speed of the major league game, and this will help his baserunning just as it will help his hitting. Baker HAS to play him. It will be sheer stupidity if he spends significant time on the bench. Of course, all Baker appears to see is Stubbs' swing, and that's unfortunate. You'll never appreciate what this player can bring to the team, potentially, if all you're looking at is his swing.

alexad
08-20-2009, 12:17 PM
5 tool outfielder, oh wait, wrong GM to have that.

Highlifeman21
08-20-2009, 12:49 PM
I like how he looked in stretching the single into a double.
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6184069&c_id=cin&topic_id=
If he keeps that up and can manage a decent obp we may have something.

Awesomely long gazelle-like strides.

princeton
08-20-2009, 01:01 PM
5 tool outfielder.

three.

wrong three, though.

OnBaseMachine
08-20-2009, 01:08 PM
That strike three call on Stubbs in the 9th was hilarious. That pitch wasn't even close to being a strike.

Joseph
08-20-2009, 01:28 PM
He's probably the best defensive OFer already.

He's probably the fastest player on the team already.

His AB's were as you'd expect, he looked like he had a clue in a couple of them, and didn't really have a clue in others.

1st AB, so so, he was being aggressive, can't fault that.

2nd AB, just as mentioned it appeared he was taking just to take.

3rd AB, good AB overall, got a hit.

4th AB, very good with a poor end result on a pitch that wasn't really close. What can you do.

MississippiRed
08-20-2009, 04:35 PM
He looked great at the plate in the 10th today!

CarolinaRedleg
08-20-2009, 04:36 PM
Better than Tavares, I'm sure.

OnBaseMachine
08-20-2009, 04:36 PM
Congrats to Drew Stubbs on hitting his first major league home run today - a walkoff HR! Amazing. Jay Bruce's first major league HR was also a walkoff shot. I just saw the video and it was not a cheapie, Stubbs absolutely crushed that ball. Earlier in the game he just missed homering as he flied out to the wall in left. If he can show that power more often he can be a very good major leaguer, IMO.

That was the Reds first walkoff homer since Griffey hit one on June 30, 2008.

traderumor
08-20-2009, 04:37 PM
How we looking?

Benihana
08-20-2009, 04:50 PM
Congrats to Drew Stubbs on hitting his first major league home run today - a walkoff HR! Amazing. Jay Bruce's first major league HR was also a walkoff shot. I just saw the video and it was not a cheapie, Stubbs absolutely crushed that ball. Earlier in the game he just missed homering as he flied out to the wall in left. If he can show that power more often he can be a very good major leaguer, IMO.

That was the Reds first walkoff homer since Griffey hit one on June 30, 2008.

IF- I agree. I hope he can (for his sake and ours.)

HokieRed
08-20-2009, 05:15 PM
Great moment for the kid, the team, whatever fans were there, maybe even RZ. Hope it picks everybody up.

ochre
08-20-2009, 05:52 PM
to re-introduce an old refrain, can he pitch? :)

OnBaseMachine
08-20-2009, 05:58 PM
Stubbs: Joy and elation
Posted by JohnFay at 8/20/2009 4:45 PM EDT on Cincinnati.com

Thursday started off a little rough for Drew Stubbs. He struck in three of his first four at-bats and he's widely labeled a failure on a certain blog.

“You’ve got to be able to put failure behind you,” Stubbs said. “You’re going to fail 70 percent of the time in this game. I was able to clear my head and put together a good at-bat.”

He took two pitches to get ahead 2-0 before launching a fastball that hit off the foul pole in left to give the Reds a 2-1, 10-inning win over the Giants.

“He was patient to get a good pitch to hit and he didn’t miss it,” Baker said. “I feel great for the young man.”

Stubbs only hit three home runs in 106 games for Louisville. But he knew he had one if the ball stayed fair.

“I knew I got it good enough,” Stubbs said. “Fortunately, it hit the foul pole.”

And his feeling?

“Joy and elation,” Stubbs said. “To hit a walk-off home run in the big leagues is something everyone dreams about doing one day.”

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3a9496371f-1913-42ec-bbd6-cf02059e34b1&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

VR
08-20-2009, 05:58 PM
He looks like a bonafide major league centerfielder. Period.

Stormy
08-20-2009, 06:06 PM
He looks like a bonafide major league centerfielder. Period.

I would tend to agree with that, though he will need greatly improved contact at the plate in order to succeed. Regardless, I like him, and he's vastly superior to WT in CF.

My concern is that we already have a guy who I believe can play elite CF defense while posting a 370+OBP, and leading off (Chris Dickerson). Will the Reds use Stubbs as Dickerson's RHH platoon partner once Bruce returns, and beyond? Will he sometimes also spell Bruce versus LHP while staying in CF? Can he develop just facing LHP? Is he going to be a trading chip? Who is going to be the OF's big bopper to offset the relatively light production afforded by Dickerson, Stubbs, and Bruce (so far)?

I'm excited for Drew though, and excited about seeing more of him in CF for now. :beerme:

RedEye
08-20-2009, 06:10 PM
My concern is that we already have a guy who I believe can play elite CF defense while posting a 370+OBP, and leading off (Chris Dickerson). Will the Reds use Stubbs as Dickerson's RHH platoon partner once Bruce returns, and beyond? Will he sometimes also spell Bruce versus LHP while staying in CF? Can he develop just facing LHP? Is he going to be a trading chip? Who is going to be the OF's big bopper to offset the relatively light production afforded by Dickerson, Stubbs, and Bruce (so far)?


They could do worse than start a Dickerson-Stubbs-Bruce OF next year. At least the defense would be stellar for sure... and the offense could surprise as well.

Patrick Bateman
08-20-2009, 06:11 PM
One trend that seems apparent with Stubbs, is that although he's never put up great stats anywhere, and has consistently lacked good power numbers, is that he's been able to keep his stats to an acceptable level each step of the way.

Usually when the numbers are year in and year out mediocre, that at some level it catches up to you, and those mediocre stats turn crappy. That hasn't happened, yet, and perhaps the major leagues will finally be the breaking point.

But I think to date, he's beaten a lot of the odds that have been stacked on his particular road to the majors (never being young for his level, and never putting up great stats).

I think the reason is that he has a really high baseball IQ. He learns what he needs to do to adjust to the level, and he has always had a sound approach at the plate. I think today he somewhat showed that. Being his 2nd major league game, it couldn't have been easy going through that game with 3 Ks, and up to that last at-bat a really dismal game. But he kept his head in the game, and kept to the patient approach rather than trying to force something into happening. In the end he got rewarded, and I think that if he keeps up with that type of process, he has more than enough talent to keep afloat, even right now in the majors (Despite the mediocre AAA numbers).

nate
08-20-2009, 06:14 PM
They could do worse than start a Dickerson-Stubbs-Bruce OF next year. At least the defense would be stellar for sure... and the offense could surprise as well.

I totally understand this sentiment and I know what you're saying. I'd prefer they do something that turns that into:

"We know the defense and offense will be stellar."

Can you dig it?

Patrick Bateman
08-20-2009, 06:15 PM
I would tend to agree with that, though he will need greatly improved contact at the plate in order to succeed. Regardless, I like him, and he's vastly superior to WT in CF.

My concern is that we already have a guy who I believe can play elite CF defense while posting a 370+OBP, and leading off (Chris Dickerson). Will the Reds use Stubbs as Dickerson's RHH platoon partner once Bruce returns, and beyond? Will he sometimes also spell Bruce versus LHP while staying in CF? Can he develop just facing LHP? Is he going to be a trading chip? Who is going to be the OF's big bopper to offset the relatively light production afforded by Dickerson, Stubbs, and Bruce (so far)?

I'm excited for Drew though, and excited about seeing more of him in CF for now. :beerme:

Well I think ideally, you want to have 4 good OF'ders. If both Dickerson and Stubbs truly turn out to be those type of players, the Reds will be able to spot them in favourable match-ups, and have depth when injuries arise. There's more than enough at-bats for 4 guys out there, especially one that can play elite defense. So I think ideally, Stubbs and Dickerson share CF, with Bruce, and a good hitting LF'der to be named is your OF. The rest sorts itself out if they are all hitting well.

RedEye
08-20-2009, 06:33 PM
I totally understand this sentiment and I know what you're saying. I'd prefer they do something that turns that into:

"We know the defense and offense will be stellar."

Can you dig it?

I can totally dig it. I'm just not sure it's realistic. A Stubbs-Dickerson-Bruce OF, OTOH, is realistic of Teh Dusty and Walt just put their minds to it. Those guys are young, they can all go get it, and they all have potential to post OBPs of .350 or higher, I think. Those two things by themselves would make such a trip a vast improvement over the OFs of recent Reds pasts. Let these guys grow together, I say!

IslandRed
08-20-2009, 06:35 PM
The consensus on Stubbs, so far as I'd heard here and elsewhere, said that he was off-the-charts good in the field and on the basepaths, he's patient at the plate, and he doesn't actually hit all that well. So far, so accurate. He's going to struggle to hit, but if he can sit on and crush the occasional behind-in-the-count or get-ahead fastball just often enough to discourage pitchers from blithely throwing it over the plate, he ought to be able to draw enough walks to prop up the OBP. Really, the rest of his game is so good, he'll be a valuable player if he can just avoid being an out machine.

Stormy
08-20-2009, 08:54 PM
Well I think ideally, you want to have 4 good OF'ders. If both Dickerson and Stubbs truly turn out to be those type of players, the Reds will be able to spot them in favourable match-ups, and have depth when injuries arise. There's more than enough at-bats for 4 guys out there, especially one that can play elite defense. So I think ideally, Stubbs and Dickerson share CF, with Bruce, and a good hitting LF'der to be named is your OF. The rest sorts itself out if they are all hitting well.

I'd be thrilled with precisely that scenario. First Walt has to acquire the LF, then Dusty has to maximize the aforementioned OF rotation properly. I'm not sure I expect either to happen, even though it's so obvious.

RedsManRick
08-20-2009, 09:25 PM
What's funny is comparing Stubbs' downside with Taveras' upside. They're awfully similar. Only Stubbs' doesn't cost millions of bucks. Then you factor in Stubbs' upside... The Taveras signing would be hilarious if it wasn't pathetically depressing. CF and leadoff should be a Stubbs/Dickerson platoon for the remainder in 2009 and for the start of 2010 if Stubbs doesn't completely embarrass himself at the plate.

If it was me, I pay somebody as much as it takes to trade Taveras this offseason, essentially up to his entire salary, just to get something of value out of him. Otherwise, he can caddy for Heisey in Louisville next year because his roster spot needs to go to a LH corner OF who can platoon with Gomes.

osuceltic
08-20-2009, 11:19 PM
I would tend to agree with that, though he will need greatly improved contact at the plate in order to succeed. Regardless, I like him, and he's vastly superior to WT in CF.

My concern is that we already have a guy who I believe can play elite CF defense while posting a 370+OBP, and leading off (Chris Dickerson). Will the Reds use Stubbs as Dickerson's RHH platoon partner once Bruce returns, and beyond? Will he sometimes also spell Bruce versus LHP while staying in CF? Can he develop just facing LHP? Is he going to be a trading chip? Who is going to be the OF's big bopper to offset the relatively light production afforded by Dickerson, Stubbs, and Bruce (so far)?

I'm excited for Drew though, and excited about seeing more of him in CF for now. :beerme:
I just don't see the elite CF defense from Dickerson. I see OK CF defense, nothing more. In fact, that has been one of the disappointments of Dickerson's season. He's average defensively in center and really no better than average in either corner. He has better range than most corner outfielders, but struggles around the wall and on the move.

Anyway, if Stubbs can match Dickerson offensively and be legitimately great in CF, then he's a valuable player.

membengal
08-21-2009, 08:39 AM
What's funny is comparing Stubbs' downside with Taveras' upside. They're awfully similar. Only Stubbs' doesn't cost millions of bucks. Then you factor in Stubbs' upside... The Taveras signing would be hilarious if it wasn't pathetically depressing. CF and leadoff should be a Stubbs/Dickerson platoon for the remainder in 2009 and for the start of 2010 if Stubbs doesn't completely embarrass himself at the plate.

If it was me, I pay somebody as much as it takes to trade Taveras this offseason, essentially up to his entire salary, just to get something of value out of him. Otherwise, he can caddy for Heisey in Louisville next year because his roster spot needs to go to a LH corner OF who can platoon with Gomes.

That's what I really don't get about the Taveras signing. At all. Jocketty HAD to know what Stubbs was and that he was close, right? So why go the second year for Taveras? At that kind of coin? What the heck was he thinking with that?

Whatever else Stubbs might or might not be with the bat, he fields circles around Taveras, and any scout and observer in the game knew that last off-season. Stubbs' glove has been ranked among the best in all of baseball in CF, minors or majors, since he made his debut with the Reds organization. I really don't know what Jocketty was thinking with the second year, and it bothers me, a ton, that he made that kind of commitment to Taveras with a guy like Stubbs in house and close.

11larkin11
08-21-2009, 09:17 AM
This team has guys that are going to be capable of driving runners in (Votto, Phillips, Rolen, Bruce). I see no reason you can't throw two high OBP guys in Left and Center and 1-2 in the order. If you want more OBP, you throw Hanigan in there. If you want more run producers, you pick up Hernandez's option (which I am not against doing). Getting a run producer at SS could help as well (J.J. Hardy)

PuffyPig
08-21-2009, 10:22 AM
If Stubbs can produce a .350 OBA he'll be a viable major league CF.

But that might be a big if right now.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 10:25 AM
If Stubbs can produce a .350 OBA he'll be a viable major league CF.

But that might be a big if right now.

How much time do you give him to do that?

Point being, he's going to need time and ABs in order to get better. Some patience is required, just like people are being patient with Bruce, and people were patient with EdE.

princeton
08-21-2009, 10:27 AM
Will the Reds use Stubbs as Dickerson's RHH platoon partner once Bruce returns, and beyond?

:pray:



one of Reds' many problems (and a lot of teams have such problems) is that they immediately give young players too much responsibility after promoting them, then upon failure get rid of them. Homer Bailey is a classic example, but so is Jay Bruce. Contrast that to Josh Hamilton. Who's flourishing?

It's just not how a real workplace operates. be real world: give them small responsibilities and if opportunities arise and they take advantage of them, move them up.

I know that this flies in the face of development dogma (e.g. platoons hurt young kids, who supposedly need reps in order to learn to hit lefties or righties), but first I don't trust development dogma and second Stubbs is no wunderkind. He needs to be in a role where the team gets the most that it can out of its investment.

why the Reds have never made princeton an offer is obviously due to the fact that such common sense would never fit in.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 11:20 AM
one of Reds' many problems (and a lot of teams have such problems) is that they immediately give young players too much responsibility after promoting them, then upon failure get rid of them. Homer Bailey is a classic example, but so is Jay Bruce. Contrast that to Josh Hamilton. Who's flourishing?

It's just not how a real workplace operates. be real world: give them small responsibilities and if opportunities arise and they take advantage of them, move them up.

I know that this flies in the face of development dogma (e.g. platoons hurt young kids, who supposedly need reps in order to learn to hit lefties or righties), but first I don't trust development dogma and second Stubbs is no wunderkind. He needs to be in a role where the team gets the most that it can out of its investment.

Not a one size fits all thing. Hamilton has always had a sizeable platoon split. In addition, he was coming back from 4 years of inactivity. Stubbs, over the course of his entire minor league career, does not have a significant split (he's been slightly, only slightly, better against righties). No health/durability red flags, though he should be rested from time to time, like just about any player.

Speed and defense do not slump, and Stubbs, if he can learn to muster a decent OBP in the bigs, can be an asset to the team on an everyday basis, given these assets. He may be a better defender than Dickerson, and he is very likely a better baserunner/basestealer. The team is going nowhere in the standings, so it is a perfect opportunity to see what kind of aptitude he's got for adjusting to the game at the major league level, which will inform whether he can approach his ceiling, which is pretty high.

I do agree re: Bruce. Baker installed him in the #3 spot in the order once Junior got hurt, and the kid caved in. His problems vs lefties have persisted, dramatically. I also agree re: Bailey. But I think Stubbs is a different story, for reasons noted, and for the fact that he's a few years older than the other guys were and has already had to make adjustments throughout his professional career. I think that makes him less vulnerable to collapsing under the weight of expectations and the inevitable rough patches. He may never be a great ballplayer, or even a real good one, but he has real upside, and the organization would be remiss, in my opinion, if they cramp his potential by trying to make an instant decision about what he can't do. That's what this message board is for. ;)

Rest him, sure. Even put him in a kind of rotation with the other OFs, and, as Baker has suggested he'll do, pick a spot here and there to give him a break against a particularly tough guy (we all saw what Cain did to him). All that makes sense to me. But I would not place him in a strict platoon, hitting only against lefties. He should be starting at least 2/3s to 3/4s of the games from here on out, in my opinion.

princeton
08-21-2009, 11:49 AM
Not a one size fits all thing.

IMO, it needs to be. a team needs to have a system and stick with it in a disciplined fashion. teams put too much emphasis on the hope brought on by their young players, who need to earn their stripes by apprenticeship. not only that, I suspect that apprenticeships would actually help development and build esprit de corps.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 12:23 PM
:pray:



one of Reds' many problems (and a lot of teams have such problems) is that they immediately give young players too much responsibility after promoting them, then upon failure get rid of them. Homer Bailey is a classic example, but so is Jay Bruce. Contrast that to Josh Hamilton. Who's flourishing?

It's just not how a real workplace operates. be real world: give them small responsibilities and if opportunities arise and they take advantage of them, move them up.

I know that this flies in the face of development dogma (e.g. platoons hurt young kids, who supposedly need reps in order to learn to hit lefties or righties), but first I don't trust development dogma and second Stubbs is no wunderkind. He needs to be in a role where the team gets the most that it can out of its investment.

why the Reds have never made princeton an offer is obviously due to the fact that such common sense would never fit in.Food for thought also is the Reds current wisdom that players who are near major league ready are better off getting "regular reps" or starting pitchers are better off "getting their regular turn" in the minor leagues rather than letting them start out in part time roles. Not bench players, or the dreaded long reliever, but part time roles.

Right now, I keep on hearing excuse after excuse for not promoting some guys who could probably help out now as "we want them to get regular at-bats in the minors." I'm not so sure I agree with that treatment of your up and coming starters.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 12:27 PM
IMO, it needs to be. a team needs to have a system and stick with it in a disciplined fashion. teams put too much emphasis on the hope brought on by their young players, who need to earn their stripes by apprenticeship. not only that, I suspect that apprenticeships would actually help development and build esprit de corps.


The minor leagues are the apprenticeship, and the Reds are currently using it in a very formulaic way, which sounds like what you'd approve. Everybody in the Reds' clubhouse knows Stubbs has paid his dues. At the same time, the vet he's replacing has failed, unequivocably. So, ducks are in a row, no feathers should be ruffled. The counter-example is Hamilton, who you cite as the one who was handled correctly. Apparently, his treatment (which of course was over-the-top idiosyncratic) led to some uneasy feelings in the clubhouse.

Look at the Tigers. Talent rules. Porcello and Perry promoted to the majors out of spring training. Point being, know the player. If he's got the talent, don't micromanage him. Let him try to show it.

nate
08-21-2009, 12:30 PM
Stubbs' walkoff HR was the highlight of the second half for me.

Loved the pie in the face too; it never gets old!

princeton
08-21-2009, 12:30 PM
The minor leagues are the apprenticeship, and the Reds are currently using it in a very formulaic way, which sounds like what you'd approve.

if I'd approve it, then why am I questioning it? it's not a great system, IMO

Reds even need to move starters up from A ball to AA bullpen before moving into AA rotation, and same deal as they go from AA to AAA.

Benihana
08-21-2009, 12:36 PM
if I'd approve it, then why am I questioning it? it's not a great system, IMO

Reds even need to move starters up from A ball to AA bullpen before moving into AA rotation, and same deal as they go from AA to AAA.

I don't know if I agree with that. There are a lot of pitchers who just don't have the arm to pitch out of the bullpen. I know there were some pitchers at Michigan that it didn't matter if they pitched one inning or six, you'd have to give them five days to rest before they could throw effectively again. You cannot have a one-size-fits-all strategy for developing pitchers, it just can't work that way.

princeton
08-21-2009, 12:41 PM
You cannot have a one-size-fits-all strategy for developing pitchers, it just can't work that way.

all of this can't-do stuff. there's so much developmental dogma that doesn't work.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 12:41 PM
The minor leagues are the apprenticeship, and the Reds are currently using it in a very formulaic way, which sounds like what you'd approve. Everybody in the Reds' clubhouse knows Stubbs has paid his dues. At the same time, the vet he's replacing has failed, unequivocably. So, ducks are in a row, no feathers should be ruffled. The counter-example is Hamilton, who you cite as the one who was handled correctly. Apparently, his treatment (which of course was over-the-top idiosyncratic) led to some uneasy feelings in the clubhouse.

Look at the Tigers. Talent rules. Porcello and Perry promoted to the majors out of spring training. Point being, know the player. If he's got the talent, don't micromanage him. Let him try to show it.

I think the model that Princeton is getting at would be analogous to the surgeon track. From high school, to undergrad (Rookie/A ball) to medical school (AA) to residency (AAA) to surgery (majors). But surgeons are not taken from residency, put in surgery and turned loose on a patient having a life and death operation. The new surgeon is going to be given a small role in the operating room or given simple procedures, with increasing responsibilities as he gets experience, until one day he is ready to be the head surgeon on a procedure, and increasingly complex procedures (starter/starting pitcher).

The point of the analogy is that there is such a vast difference between AAA and the majors that it is often career suicide when you take a guy from residency to major surgery and turn him loose on the job. Of course, there will be some super genius doctors that could handle it, but as a method that produces consistent results, the apprenticeship model at the major league level makes a lot of sense. Of course, you have to identify the right apprentices, which is really what the minor leagues are for.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 12:44 PM
The point of the analogy is that there is such a vast difference between AAA and the majors that it is often career suicide when you take a guy from residency to major surgery and turn him loose on the job. Of course, there will be some super genius doctors that could handle it, but as a method that produces consistent results, the apprenticeship model at the major league level makes a lot of sense. Of course, you have to identify the right apprentices, which is really what the minor leagues is for.

So, what is the apprenticeship you'd propose for Stubbs? As I've noted, there's no platoon split.

Hoosier Red
08-21-2009, 12:48 PM
I agree with Princeton in this regard.

Develop a system that can train players to be adequate major league ball players. Stick to that system. Than find players who can flourish in said system.

Don't draft the guy from Michigan if he wouldn't progress through your system well. There are probably 10 guys you could draft at a given spot in any draft. The deciding point can be, will this player's skills be enhanced by my way of doing things in the minors.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 12:57 PM
So, what is the apprenticeship you'd propose for Stubbs? As I've noted, there's no platoon split.A platoon partner that meets or beats his production on a split. Platoon also implies it is split driven, when really all you need it to be is a two players who provide similar or better production when they are in the game. Part-time would probably be a better term to use in such an arrangement.

Assuming what you say is true of Stubbs regarding splits, that actually makes him an easier match to maximize the splits.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 01:08 PM
Develop a system that can train players to be adequate major league ball players

Adequate? Every player?


Stick to that system. Than find players who can flourish in said system.

What does this mean in terms of baseball skills? To me, it sounds like theoretical mumbo jumbo.


Don't draft the guy from Michigan if he wouldn't progress through your system well

I don't see how you know how well a player will progress before he starts playing. Seems like a model for trying to avoid failure as opposed to reaching for possible success.


The deciding point can be, will this player's skills be enhanced by my way of doing things in the minors.

Some teaching should be organization-wide. No doubt about it. But the devil's in the details. Should all pitchers throw the same pitches? Of course not. Should all hitters have similar mechanics? No. Should all players have the same practice habits? Not really. Can all players think the same way (the way the coaches think)? Of course not. There has to be recognition of a player's particular abilities, strengths and weaknesses, as well as a willingness to take the time to learn how the player thinks. What does he think he can do? What does he want to learn? How does he handle failure? If you don't know these things, you will have a hard time helping the player get better.

Every player is unique, to an important extent.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 01:11 PM
A platoon partner that meets or beats his production on a split. Platoon also implies it is split driven, when really all you need it to be is a two players who provide similar or better production when they are in the game. Part-time would probably be a better term to use in such an arrangement.

Assuming what you say is true of Stubbs regarding splits, that actually makes him an easier match to maximize the splits.

I don't understand what this means. Sounds like, play him when he'll do well. Or, play him when you know the other guys won't do well. LIke, against good pitchers?

Can you explain this more clearly? Sorry if I'm missing something...

ochre
08-21-2009, 01:19 PM
I'm not sure I'd throw prospects that the team envisions as future every day players/stars into a platoon situation so early in their career. To develop, or potentially develop, the skills needed, they'll need to face left handed and right handed pitching.

I'd say, potentially at least, the walk-off HR might have been the worst thing that could have happened for Stubbs developmentally. Not saying it is, mind you, just that sometimes young players might see their approach change based on a one-off event such as that.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 01:22 PM
I don't understand what this means. Sounds like, play him when he'll do well. Or, play him when you know the other guys won't do well. LIke, against good pitchers?

Can you explain this more clearly? Sorry if I'm missing something...You said Stubbs does not have platoon splits, which I understand to mean that he has not shown a "kills lefties/overmatched against righties" or vice versa propensity. So, if he performs against either hand, then he can share time with someone who performs better than him against a certain hand. In other words, with what you have described, he could be paired with a lefty or righty killer, or at least someone that does better against either hand than he does.

Hoosier Red
08-21-2009, 01:39 PM
Adequate? Every player?

Well obviously that's the goal. If you can fill the base of your roster year to year with league average or near league average players, it allows you to spend big bucks on superstars who can make a difference.



What does this mean in terms of baseball skills? To me, it sounds like theoretical mumbo jumbo.

Well it is theoretical mumbo jumbo. Everything we're talking about is theoretical. But it means take players who can learn in an enviroment which meshes well with the way your organization is going to teach them.


I don't see how you know how well a player will progress before he starts playing. Seems like a model for trying to avoid failure as opposed to reaching for possible success.
And that's the rub, it is avoiding failure to an extent. But which organization do you think is going to be better the one that can produce 5 average players every year(and thus gets average production from 15 people on the roster at basically minimum salary every year) Or the organization that can produce 1 superstar every year. Yeah the superstar helps, but he gets expensive and you still have to fill in the other 23 spots on the roster.



Some teaching should be organization-wide. No doubt about it. But the devil's in the details. Should all pitchers throw the same pitches? Of course not. Should all hitters have similar mechanics? No. Should all players have the same practice habits? Not really. Can all players think the same way (the way the coaches think)? Of course not. There has to be recognition of a player's particular abilities, strengths and weaknesses, as well as a willingness to take the time to learn how the player thinks. What does he think he can do? What does he want to learn? How does he handle failure? If you don't know these things, you will have a hard time helping the player get better.
Every player is unique, to an important extent.

Obviously every system would need some flexibility within the system. But take Princeton's example for instance...
Every player when promoted goes to the bullpen first, than to the rotation if needed and deserved. There's some flexibility to determine how long someone stays in the bullpen. It also builds flexibility in what the players can do and how they can help the club. But the overall plan stays the same.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 02:02 PM
You said Stubbs does not have platoon splits, which I understand to mean that he has not shown a "kills lefties/overmatched against righties" or vice versa propensity. So, if he performs against either hand, then he can share time with someone who performs better than him against a certain hand. In other words, with what you have described, he could be paired with a lefty or righty killer, or at least someone that does better against either hand than he does.

OK, so what do you recommend? Platoon with Dickerson, since Dickerson is the only other CF on the roster? Meaning Stubbs would play only v. lefties...who tend to neutralize the running game, a strength of Stubbs.

Let him play. Start accruing the sample size, and give him the experience he'll need to come back a better player next year.

princeton
08-21-2009, 02:05 PM
You said Stubbs does not have platoon splits, which I understand to mean that he has not shown a "kills lefties/overmatched against righties" or vice versa propensity.

Drew forgot to do the "kills lefties" thing in 2009. he had it in 2008. it'd be a good thing to get back.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 02:08 PM
OK, so what do you recommend? Platoon with Dickerson, since Dickerson is the only other CF on the roster? Meaning Stubbs would play only v. lefties...who tend to neutralize the running game, a strength of Stubbs.

Let him play. Start accruing the sample size and the experience he'll need to come back a better player next year.I'm not stuck on "platoon" as a concept. What I conceptualize is job sharing. I don't think you have to stick it into a "only plays against" to do that successfully. For example, Gomes has had his best year against righties when the book said "can't hit righties, should platoon and play exclusively against lefties." Unfortunately, we saw how spotty seeing a lefty can be, so Dusty has the good fortune of seeing him perform against righties given the opportunity. Now, it could be that its an anomaly, or it could be "given opportunity to see more righties, start to hit righties better."

BTW, this was something Sparky did very well with Ken Griffey, Sr., just as an example.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 02:13 PM
Drew forgot to do the "kills lefties" thing in 2009. he had it in 2008. it'd be a good thing to get back.

So, you'd like to see him play only against lefties? Or just against every lefty and some righties? What percentage of games would you like to see him start, roughly?

princeton
08-21-2009, 02:17 PM
So, you'd like to see him play only against lefties? Or just against every lefty and some righties? What percentage of games would you like to see him start, roughly?

at this point, I'd give him some lefty starts. if he does well, he can win all of the lefty starts and the occasional righty start. if he hits some righties, he can get more.

but I would have had Stubbs up all year as Dickerson's CF partner. and the only thing that has changed since is emergence of Heisey-- those two guys should be competing for that role.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 02:49 PM
at this point, I'd give him some lefty starts. if he does well, he can win all of the lefty starts and the occasional righty start. if he hits some righties, he can get more.

but I would have had Stubbs up all year as Dickerson's CF partner. and the only thing that has changed since is emergence of Heisey-- those two guys should be competing for that role.

Fair enough. Funny thing is, the team is in a similar position with Balentien, who also shows better numbers throughout his career (minors & majors) vs. righties.

I don't see the need for kid gloves. Stubbs has not been rushed. He's a smart, mature kid. He has not shown a particular weakness vs. righties, and he probably stands a good chance of using his running game much more successfully vs. righties than lefties. I show confidence in him until he shows me there's a reason not to. Try to get full value out of the kid.

princeton
08-21-2009, 02:55 PM
I show confidence in him until he shows me there's a reason not to.

I think that leads to a lot of early failure, and is what I'd seek to avoid.

SMcGavin
08-21-2009, 02:59 PM
at this point, I'd give him some lefty starts. if he does well, he can win all of the lefty starts and the occasional righty start. if he hits some righties, he can get more.

but I would have had Stubbs up all year as Dickerson's CF partner. and the only thing that has changed since is emergence of Heisey-- those two guys should be competing for that role.

I'm pretty much with you. I don't have a problem with Stubbs playing everyday now in CF if Dickerson is playing somewhere else in the outfield.

But Dickerson is definitely this team's best bet in CF against RHP. Looking forward to next year, that job belongs to him.

Mario-Rijo
08-21-2009, 03:15 PM
Dusty won't continue to watch him take hittable pitches and Dusty is doing him a disservice already sticking him at the top of the lineup. That's my take.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 03:20 PM
I think that leads to a lot of early failure, and is what I'd seek to avoid.

Fair enough. But I doubt that a diet of lefties only (there are a lot of meaty righties out there) coupled with long stretches of pine time is the optimal way to do that. 1 out of 5 starters in the NL Central is a lefty, guaranteeing that he plays once a series, at most, in those games. Probably similar across the league. When you run into a lefty, it's hi to Santana, Kershaw, Lee, Wandy Rodriguez, Duke... the quality is generally higher than what he'd see facing righties, I think. And, as noted, he's going to have a much tougher time running vs. lefties, meaning you're removing one of his strengths (a form of early failure).

I think one of the ways to mitigate expectations would be to hit him lower in the lineup.

The real threat of showing overconfidence in Stubbs would have been to move him too quickly through the minors. They haven't done that.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 03:26 PM
Fair enough. But I doubt that a diet of lefties only (there are a lot of meaty righties out there) coupled with long stretches of pine time is the optimal way to do that. 1 out of 5 starters in the NL Central is a lefty, guaranteeing that he plays once a series, at most, in those games. Probably similar across the league. When you run into a lefty, it's hi to Santana, Kershaw, Lee, Wandy Rodriguez, Duke... the quality is generally higher than what he'd see facing righties, I think. And, as noted, he's going to have a much tougher time running vs. lefties, meaning you're removing one of his strengths (a form of early failure).

I think one of the ways to mitigate expectations would be to hit him lower in the lineup.

The real threat of showing overconfidence in Stubbs would have been to move him too quickly through the minors. They haven't done that.
I think we disagree on the assumption regarding the dramatic difference between minors to the majors, which is exactly what this idea is trying to address. It has been said that it is one of the most difficult jumps in sports, and I'm starting to think that even that is an understatement.

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 03:32 PM
I think we disagree on the assumption regarding the dramatic difference between minors to the majors, which is exactly what this idea is trying to address. It has been said that it is one of the most difficult jumps in sports, and I'm starting to think that even that is an understatement.

Got to make the jump sometime. Votto made it easily. Dickerson's transition was seamless. Hanigan did fine. Stubbs has not been rushed. He's got good plate discipline tendencies (even if he needs to refine them a bit). Yeah, if he starts to swirl the bowl you pull him out. You rest him against guys who kill righties. You drop him in the order. We're looking at what, 40 games? He should be starting at least 30 of them, in my opinion. If it doesn't go well, he's got all winter to learn from his mistakes, lick his wounds and chalk it up to experience. And the Reds will have a much better of idea of what he needs to do/change in order to give him the best chance for success in 2010.

Heath
08-21-2009, 03:38 PM
I'm pretty much with you. I don't have a problem with Stubbs playing everyday now in CF if Dickerson is playing somewhere else in the outfield.

But Dickerson is definitely this team's best bet in CF against RHP. Looking forward to next year, that job belongs to him.

Shooter, if we were in Bizzaro Reds World, I'd be all over that.

But if the Dustinator is back and BCast is still paying the guy, we will be seeing tons of Willy T.

edabbs44
08-21-2009, 03:42 PM
I'm pretty much with you. I don't have a problem with Stubbs playing everyday now in CF if Dickerson is playing somewhere else in the outfield.

But Dickerson is definitely this team's best bet in CF against RHP. Looking forward to next year, that job belongs to him.

To be honest, they should be looking outside the organization for a CFer. Relying on Dickerson will just extend the mediocrity.

nate
08-21-2009, 04:00 PM
To be honest, they should be looking outside the organization for a CFer. Relying on Dickerson will just extend the mediocrity.

Sorted by OPS+


Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+
as DH 9 38 32 5 11 3 0 3 7 1 0 5 8 .344 .447 .719 1.166 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 .381 234 191
as P 111 258 219 12 30 5 1 3 15 0 0 6 78 .137 .159 .210 .369 46 5 0 32 1 0 3 .194 7 103
as 2B 120 513 458 68 120 21 3 20 83 19 9 38 58 .262 .320 .452 .772 207 14 5 3 9 3 4 .257 123 103
as RF 120 511 451 53 108 21 2 26 69 6 3 55 105 .239 .325 .468 .793 211 7 3 1 1 4 4 .255 128 99
as 1B 120 518 455 66 128 21 1 21 76 5 1 55 94 .281 .366 .470 .837 214 8 6 2 0 5 5 .315 142 99
as PH 99 177 157 18 32 10 2 3 16 3 0 19 58 .204 .294 .350 .644 55 3 1 0 0 3 0 .302 87 94
as C 120 482 417 34 109 17 2 4 32 4 6 54 48 .261 .345 .341 .686 142 10 2 4 5 8 5 .284 101 93
as Infield 120 2511 2211 255 551 105 9 61 268 31 16 227 359 .249 .324 .388 .711 857 44 27 23 23 21 27 .270 107 88
at Off. Pos. 120 2034 1793 217 434 82 7 74 228 14 11 197 410 .242 .324 .419 .743 752 28 25 9 10 11 20 .273 115 87
at Def. Pos. 120 2038 1827 220 456 85 9 33 177 51 18 146 258 .250 .307 .360 .667 658 34 14 29 22 15 23 .272 94 81
as Outfield 120 1561 1409 182 339 62 7 46 137 34 13 116 309 .241 .302 .392 .695 553 18 12 15 9 5 16 .276 101 79
as LF 120 505 454 60 107 23 2 16 44 2 4 37 120 .236 .300 .401 .701 182 7 7 2 5 1 3 .282 103 79
as SS 120 498 448 49 103 29 1 5 38 7 3 30 68 .230 .283 .333 .615 149 6 5 10 5 4 5 .258 79 71
as 3B 120 500 433 38 91 17 2 11 39 1 3 50 91 .210 .302 .335 .637 145 6 9 4 4 1 8 .239 86 69
as CF 120 545 504 69 124 18 3 4 24 26 6 24 84 .246 .281 .317 .599 160 4 2 12 3 0 9 .286 74 59
Don't like OPS+? How about OBP?


Split G GS PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB GDP HBP SH SF IBB ROE BAbip tOPS+ sOPS+
as DH 9 38 32 5 11 3 0 3 7 1 0 5 8 .344 .447 .719 1.166 23 1 1 0 0 0 0 .381 234 191
as 1B 120 518 455 66 128 21 1 21 76 5 1 55 94 .281 .366 .470 .837 214 8 6 2 0 5 5 .315 142 99
as C 120 482 417 34 109 17 2 4 32 4 6 54 48 .261 .345 .341 .686 142 10 2 4 5 8 5 .284 101 93
as RF 120 511 451 53 108 21 2 26 69 6 3 55 105 .239 .325 .468 .793 211 7 3 1 1 4 4 .255 128 99
as Infield 120 2511 2211 255 551 105 9 61 268 31 16 227 359 .249 .324 .388 .711 857 44 27 23 23 21 27 .270 107 88
at Off. Pos. 120 2034 1793 217 434 82 7 74 228 14 11 197 410 .242 .324 .419 .743 752 28 25 9 10 11 20 .273 115 87
as 2B 120 513 458 68 120 21 3 20 83 19 9 38 58 .262 .320 .452 .772 207 14 5 3 9 3 4 .257 123 103
at Def. Pos. 120 2038 1827 220 456 85 9 33 177 51 18 146 258 .250 .307 .360 .667 658 34 14 29 22 15 23 .272 94 81
as 3B 120 500 433 38 91 17 2 11 39 1 3 50 91 .210 .302 .335 .637 145 6 9 4 4 1 8 .239 86 69
as Outfield 120 1561 1409 182 339 62 7 46 137 34 13 116 309 .241 .302 .392 .695 553 18 12 15 9 5 16 .276 101 79
as LF 120 505 454 60 107 23 2 16 44 2 4 37 120 .236 .300 .401 .701 182 7 7 2 5 1 3 .282 103 79
as PH 99 177 157 18 32 10 2 3 16 3 0 19 58 .204 .294 .350 .644 55 3 1 0 0 3 0 .302 87 94
as SS 120 498 448 49 103 29 1 5 38 7 3 30 68 .230 .283 .333 .615 149 6 5 10 5 4 5 .258 79 71
as CF 120 545 504 69 124 18 3 4 24 26 6 24 84 .246 .281 .317 .599 160 4 2 12 3 0 9 .286 74 59
as P 111 258 219 12 30 5 1 3 15 0 0 6 78 .137 .159 .210 .369 46 5 0 32 1 0 3 .194 7 103
Too bad we can't find someone with a line like .270/.365/.371 to man that spot for low cash while we use our remaining cash to go after a SS/SP/OF.

edabbs44
08-21-2009, 04:09 PM
And Dickerson's OPS+ of 92 is supposed to help Cincy achieve what we want them to? I couldn't care less what Taveras is doing. Dickerson isn't the CFer they need to bring winning baseball to Cincinnati.

Dickerson is like the below average looking girl who hangs out with the fatties in HS just so she'd look better. Make her stand alone and the truth comes out.

nate
08-21-2009, 04:16 PM
And Dickerson's OPS+ of 92 is supposed to help Cincy achieve what we want them to?

By bringing a black hole of horrible offense and defense to average/above average at a low cost.


I couldn't care less what Taveras is doing.

Yes, that much is certain.


Dickerson isn't the CFer they need to bring winning baseball to Cincinnati.

That doesn't mean anything.


Dickerson is like the below average looking girl who hangs out with the fatties in HS just so she'd look better. Make her stand alone and the truth comes out.

That's a poor analogy.

The Reds need to be league average at several position. They have the depth to do that in CF which lets them focus their efforts on making other below average positions above average to good to, dare I say, great.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 04:29 PM
Got to make the jump sometime. Votto made it easily. Dickerson's transition was seamless. Hanigan did fine. Stubbs has not been rushed. He's got good plate discipline tendencies (even if he needs to refine them a bit). Yeah, if he starts to swirl the bowl you pull him out. You rest him against guys who kill righties. You drop him in the order. We're looking at what, 40 games? He should be starting at least 30 of them, in my opinion. If it doesn't go well, he's got all winter to learn from his mistakes, lick his wounds and chalk it up to experience. And the Reds will have a much better of idea of what he needs to do/change in order to give him the best chance for success in 2010.That approach may work for little birdies and teaching kids to swim, but it seems to create a lot of wasted resources on failed players in one organization that end up thriving elsewhere after one organization rushed them. Brandon Phillips, anyone?

SMcGavin
08-21-2009, 04:49 PM
And Dickerson's OPS+ of 92 is supposed to help Cincy achieve what we want them to? I couldn't care less what Taveras is doing. Dickerson isn't the CFer they need to bring winning baseball to Cincinnati.

Dickerson is like the below average looking girl who hangs out with the fatties in HS just so she'd look better. Make her stand alone and the truth comes out.

Dickerson vs RHP in about 350 career PAs is this: .283/.381/.457/.839 plus above average defense at an important spot. Yes he needs a platoon partner, but are you really going to argue that line isn't what a winning team needs?

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 04:50 PM
That approach may work for little birdies and teaching kids to swim, but it seems to create a lot of wasted resources on failed players in one organization that end up thriving elsewhere after one organization rushed them. Brandon Phillips, anyone?

So, you cite Brandon Phillips but ignore the 3 examples of Dickerson, Votto and Hanigan? How does that make your argument work?

I cited Stubbs' maturity, step-by-step progression through the minors, and solid plate discipline (all of which my 3 examples share, and Phillips, back with the Indians, did not). You cite Phillips only, yet his case differs markedly from that of Stubbs. Or do you really think you can cite a single name, and, ignoring the particulars, make your case? Oh, and of course the snarky witticism.....:rolleyes:

SMcGavin
08-21-2009, 04:52 PM
Shooter, if we were in Bizzaro Reds World, I'd be all over that.

But if the Dustinator is back and BCast is still paying the guy, we will be seeing tons of Willy T.

I used to think that too, but I think Willy has been so historically bad (and the press has started to jump on it) that Castellini might be too embarassed to go into Opening Day 2010 with him in the lineup. That's my hope at least.

edabbs44
08-21-2009, 04:54 PM
Dickerson vs RHP in about 350 career PAs is this: .283/.381/.457/.839 plus above average defense at an important spot. Yes he needs a platoon partner, but are you really going to argue that line isn't what a winning team needs?

Small sample sizes get easily skewed. His numbers are buoyed by a strong performance at the end of last year. That .736 OPS number for this year is probably more accurate, especially since it is more in line with his minor league performance.

GAC
08-21-2009, 04:58 PM
He better pan out..... we passed over Lincecum for this kid. ;)

But hey! I'd take Mrs Butterworth in CF over Taveras.

If there have been any "knocks" on Stubbs, isn't it that he's Chris Denorfia pt II?

traderumor
08-21-2009, 05:29 PM
So, you cite Brandon Phillips but ignore the 3 examples of Dickerson, Votto and Hanigan? How does that make your argument work?

I cited Stubbs' maturity, step-by-step progression through the minors, and solid plate discipline (all of which my 3 examples share, and Phillips, back with the Indians, did not). You cite Phillips only, yet his case differs markedly from that of Stubbs. Or do you really think you can cite a single name, and, ignoring the particulars, make your case? Oh, and of course the snarky witticism.....:rolleyes:Simmer down. That example immediately popped in my head. I imagine each roster in the majors has 4-5 guys who flamed out early when the team that drafted them kicked them out of the minors "nest" and their wings weren't quite ready yet.

Votto-Sept. callup 2007, Hatteberg was kept on the roster for support and a safety net in 2008, Votto progressed from level to level and kept simmering in AAA even though he prob. could have been brought up earlier in 2007.

Dickerson-late 2008 callup, I think after we traded Dunn, he is an old rookie and was brought up in a low pressure situation with a team clearly out of contention and had a fluke month of the season. He has been eased into the reality that he is a 3-1/2 or 4 outfielder, valuable but not really the type that I understand we are even talking about since he had a mediocre and long minor league career.

Hanigan-Sept callup 2008, old rookie, and Ramon Hernandez was brought in rather than handing him the job. He appears to be a good backup or a two headed catcher candidate. In no way was he thrown into the job.

So what's your point?

OnBaseMachine
08-21-2009, 05:38 PM
Chris Dickerson has a .365 OBP this year. Among MLB CFers with at least 275 plate appearances, that .365 OBP ranks 8th. That OBP is higher than what teams like the Red Sox, Cardinals, Rangers, and other contending teams are getting our of their CFers. But yeah, Dickerson's not good enough to start. :rolleyes:

lollipopcurve
08-21-2009, 05:50 PM
Simmer down.

I'm not the dude with the snark mask on.


That example immediately popped in my head. I imagine each roster in the majors has 4-5 guys who flamed out early when the team that drafted them kicked them out of the minors "nest" and their wings weren't quite ready yet.

That's your imagination, not necessarily reality.


Votto-Sept. callup 2007, Hatteberg was kept on the roster for support and a safety net in 2008, Votto progressed from level to level and kept simmering in AAA even though he prob. could have been brought up earlier in 2007.

Dickerson-late 2008 callup, I think after we traded Dunn, he is an old rookie and was brought up in a low pressure situation with a team clearly out of contention and had a fluke month of the season. He has been eased into the reality that he is a 3-1/2 or 4 outfielder, valuable but not really the type that I understand we are even talking about since he had a mediocre and long minor league career.

Hanigan-Sept callup 2008, old rookie, and Ramon Hernandez was brought in rather than handing him the job. He appears to be a good backup or a two headed catcher candidate. In no way was he thrown into the job.

In each case, we do not see struggles that would reveal some kind of massive abyss that, you say, separates AAA and the majors. There is no reason to think Stubbs may not be able to transition smoothly, like these other guys, in my opinion. He's made a deliberate progression through the minors (including a full stint in the Arizona Fall League), has a good head on his shoulders, has had to make adjustments already in the minors, and has good plate discipline. All of these factors should buoy his early efforts to get acclimated.


So what's your point?

I wouldn't baby him by platooning him only against lefties (as princeton suggested). His platoon splits don't merit it, first of all. If he goes into a 1-25 tailspin, sure, give him a breather. But the team, and Stubbs himself, needs to see how he matches up against the league at this point. It will be helpful information for all concerned heading into 2010. If he tanks, as you seem to suggest he will do, he's got all off-season to digest it and learn from it -- after all, it's only 40 games.

It's too early to make any decisions re: Dickerson vs. Stubbs. They're similar players, and both could be the team's CF in 2010. But it will be helpful to the club to see a healthy dose of Stubbs here at the end of 09 in order to begin to understand the future of the OF.

SMcGavin
08-21-2009, 05:57 PM
Small sample sizes get easily skewed. His numbers are buoyed by a strong performance at the end of last year. That .736 OPS number for this year is probably more accurate, especially since it is more in line with his minor league performance.

Yes, his numbers are buoyed by a time when he was playing well. And they are hurt by times he was playing poorly. That's why I'm quoting his career line vs RHP, you can't just throw out the data that doesn't fit your conclusion. You're right in that 350 PAs is kind of a small sample, too soon to say "this is who he is", but it's enough to start making judgements. And I think the point with Dickerson is that he has some leeway - he can fall a bit short of the pace he's set over his first 350 PAs and still be a very useful guy to have in the lineup.

edabbs44
08-21-2009, 06:33 PM
Chris Dickerson has a .365 OBP this year. Among MLB CFers with at least 275 plate appearances, that .365 OBP ranks 8th. That OBP is higher than what teams like the Red Sox, Cardinals, Rangers, and other contending teams are getting our of their CFers. But yeah, Dickerson's not good enough to start. :rolleyes:

So he would be 8th in that stat, 30th in SLG (just ahead of the mightly Carlos Gomez) and 24th in OPS.

Again, CF is an opportunity for improvement.

nate
08-21-2009, 06:52 PM
So he would be 8th in that stat, 30th in SLG (just ahead of the mightly Carlos Gomez) and 24th in OPS.

Again, CF is an opportunity for improvement.

CF is improved from "glacier-sized hole" to "nagging leak that becomes less important than the numerous other glacier-sized holes" simply by playing Dickerson.

Improving CF is WAY down my list of things to do this offseason.

traderumor
08-21-2009, 06:53 PM
I'm not the dude with the snark mask on.



That's your imagination, not necessarily reality.



In each case, we do not see struggles that would reveal some kind of massive abyss that, you say, separates AAA and the majors. There is no reason to think Stubbs may not be able to transition smoothly, like these other guys, in my opinion. He's made a deliberate progression through the minors (including a full stint in the Arizona Fall League), has a good head on his shoulders, has had to make adjustments already in the minors, and has good plate discipline. All of these factors should buoy his early efforts to get acclimated.



I wouldn't baby him by platooning him only against lefties (as princeton suggested). His platoon splits don't merit it, first of all. If he goes into a 1-25 tailspin, sure, give him a breather. But the team, and Stubbs himself, needs to see how he matches up against the league at this point. It will be helpful information for all concerned heading into 2010. If he tanks, as you seem to suggest he will do, he's got all off-season to digest it and learn from it -- after all, it's only 40 games.

It's too early to make any decisions re: Dickerson vs. Stubbs. They're similar players, and both could be the team's CF in 2010. But it will be helpful to the club to see a healthy dose of Stubbs here at the end of 09 in order to begin to understand the future of the OF.Funny, the "smooth transition" in each case was not the result of handing the newbie the job, but each has been eased into their role on the team. One of them blossomed into a star with a nice show of patience by the Reds (Votto), Dickerson was not expected to repeat his Sept. 2008 numbers, and Hanigan has become the #1 catcher only because of injury and was supported by a vet who performed well as he continued to succeed in the chances he got. Funny, now that he is playing every day, the punch and judy hitting has caught up to him and I am praying that the FO does not see him as a future answer at C.

How you can look at those three cases as an argument for what you proposed earlier, which basically is "eh, just bring 'em up and plug 'em in, they'll be fine," is really puzzling. Those three are actually examples of what Princeton was talking about.

edabbs44
08-21-2009, 07:06 PM
CF is improved from "glacier-sized hole" to "nagging leak that becomes less important than the numerous other glacier-sized holes" simply by playing Dickerson.

Improving CF is WAY down my list of things to do this offseason.

It has to be considered, due to availability concerns. For example, everyone knows that Cincy is in dire need of a SS, preferably a young one. Those aren't easy to come by. So if the opportunity presents itself to acquire an avg SS, what do you do? Pass and you may be stuck with another Gonzo like phenomenon. Go for it and now you are becoming more average.

GMs are allowed to look for everything on their list at the same time. If a CF is available for the right price, then Dickerson could be a solid 4th OFer getting 300 PAs.

nate
08-21-2009, 07:48 PM
It has to be considered, due to availability concerns. For example, everyone knows that Cincy is in dire need of a SS, preferably a young one. Those aren't easy to come by. So if the opportunity presents itself to acquire an avg SS, what do you do? Pass and you may be stuck with another Gonzo like phenomenon. Go for it and now you are becoming more average.

GMs are allowed to look for everything on their list at the same time. If a CF is available for the right price, then Dickerson could be a solid 4th OFer getting 300 PAs.

I say, if you're going into the offseason with a list of the Reds weaknesses, CF is doesn't need at the top of the list. SS, SP and perhaps LF do.

BRM
08-21-2009, 07:53 PM
I say, if you're going into the offseason with a list of the Reds weaknesses, CF is doesn't need at the top of the list. SS, SP and perhaps LF do.

I hope he looks for more than one SP.

HokieRed
08-21-2009, 10:42 PM
I hope he looks for more than one SP.

Two points.
1. I'd rank C right up there with SS and SP. Hanigan's OPS has been dropping steadily the more he plays.
2. Nix is currently at .775 OPS for the year, .945 in August. (obviously a relatively small sample). What's the argument, again, for not keeping Nix?

mth123
08-21-2009, 10:46 PM
Two points.
1. I'd rank C right up there with SS and SP. Hanigan's OPS has been dropping steadily the more he plays.
2. Nix is currently at .775 OPS for the year, .945 in August. (obviously a relatively small sample). What's the argument, again, for not keeping Nix?

.775 OPS is a bench player unless its in CF. If the Reds are going with Bruce and maybe Wlad in RF and Dickerson/Stubbs in CF the Reds need a bigger threat to platoon with Gomes. I think Nix is a major league player, but he's not a starting corner OF and the Reds roster seems to have no room for another LH Hitting OF who isn't the guy who platoons (or starts) in LF.

HokieRed
08-21-2009, 10:56 PM
I'm not ready yet to go with Wlad as part of RF or to go Dickerson/Stubbs in CF. A related question: does Dickerson have some trade value?

mth123
08-21-2009, 11:11 PM
I'm not ready yet to go with Wlad as part of RF or to go Dickerson/Stubbs in CF. A related question: does Dickerson have some trade value?

The Reds have a ton of needs and no room on the payroll. It would seem that Rolen is the big ticket offseason acquisition. Dickerson/Stubbs in CF can probably come close to average in CF but even if they are a little below average, they can plug the hole for cheap and allow the Reds to concentrate on other areas. They made the mistake last year of blowing their cash on CF when reasonable options were already on board. This year, what little money there is should be earmarked for SS, a starter or two and another catcher.

Dealing Harang and Arroyo just seems to be out of the question at this point. The Reds won't be able to replace them for any less money. They may be able to deal one and sign somebody better, but it will probably require more money and won't do anything to fill the gaping holes. I think CF needs to be filled from within simply because the reds have reasonable options in house that won't cost players or cash. Those don't exist at SS or as the semi-regular starting catcher. They need to upgrade at least one rotation spot. Probably need to deal Owings and get a mid-rotation guy in his place while pushing Cueto and Bailey to the 4 and 5 slots.

Patrick Bateman
08-21-2009, 11:39 PM
The Reds need Dickerson as much as anyone. Neither he nor Stubbs is goog enough to play CF on a regular basis. Keep 'em both, play match-ups, that's the best way to succeed. As far as I see it (in regards to the OF), we just need to settle LF for next season.

Highlifeman21
08-21-2009, 11:44 PM
The Reds need Dickerson as much as anyone. Neither he nor Stubbs is goog enough to play CF on a regular basis. Keep 'em both, play match-ups, that's the best way to succeed. As far as I see it (in regards to the OF), we just need to settle LF for next season.

The only problem is that once a certain player's quad heals, Stubbs will go back down to Louisville.

If that happens (and I fully believe it will), then we really don't know what we've got with Stubbs in terms of major league ability, b/c a certain player will return to the bat leadoff and play CF, thus taking away PAs from BOTH Dickerson and Stubbs.

HokieRed
08-21-2009, 11:53 PM
I'm not sure we'll see Stubbs go back down because, for one thing, it'll be Sept by then. I'm also not sure Stubbs had actually shown in L'ville that he was ready to be moved up.

pahster
08-22-2009, 12:32 AM
Two points.
2. Nix is currently at .775 OPS for the year, .945 in August. (obviously a relatively small sample). What's the argument, again, for not keeping Nix?

The argument for not keeping Nix lies in his inability to get on base. He's got some nice power, but he's an out machine: his career OBP is .280. This year, his OBP is higher than it has ever been and he's still only at .306.

dougdirt
08-22-2009, 03:23 AM
Apparently Drew had a good catch tonight.

GOYA
08-22-2009, 01:15 PM
Apparently Drew had a good catch tonight.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=6210703

alloverjr
08-22-2009, 08:22 PM
a defensive upgrade to WT, and even CD.

Offensively I don't get the impression he'll hit appreciably better than WT. Underwhelmed would be the word I'd use. The OF version of Janish I think.

RedEye
08-22-2009, 09:16 PM
a defensive upgrade to WT, and even CD.

Offensively I don't get the impression he'll hit appreciably better than WT. Underwhelmed would be the word I'd use. The OF version of Janish I think.

I know we're all talking small sample size here, but what in the first few games exactly gave you the impression he'd hit so poorly?

SMcGavin
08-22-2009, 09:36 PM
a defensive upgrade to WT, and even CD.

Offensively I don't get the impression he'll hit appreciably better than WT. Underwhelmed would be the word I'd use. The OF version of Janish I think.

Haven't heard that before, but really Janish is a reasonable comp. Both have solid plate discipline but not a lot else. Career minor league numbers:

Janish .261/.351/.382
Stubbs .269/.364/.401

Janish really crumbled in the high minors though while Stubbs was at least decent there. And Stubbs has the potential to develop some power. I think Stubbs will fare better than Janish has in the majors, but not by a lot.

alloverjr
08-22-2009, 10:40 PM
Haven't heard that before, but really Janish is a reasonable comp. Both have solid plate discipline but not a lot else. Career minor league numbers:

Janish .261/.351/.382
Stubbs .269/.364/.401

Janish really crumbled in the high minors though while Stubbs was at least decent there. And Stubbs has the potential to develop some power. I think Stubbs will fare better than Janish has in the majors, but not by a lot.

Stubbs IMO will fare better, and stick longer, than Janish because teams have a tendency to keep a defensive replacement in the OF v. IF. And I would agree that his power numbers would be better than Janish's given equal opportunity. Relatively speaking I guess Stubbs would be defensive replacemnet OF as Janish to the IF. Neither horrible, but neither 1st string options.

RedEye
08-22-2009, 11:44 PM
Stubbs IMO will fare better, and stick longer, than Janish because teams have a tendency to keep a defensive replacement in the OF v. IF. And I would agree that his power numbers would be better than Janish's given equal opportunity. Relatively speaking I guess Stubbs would be defensive replacemnet OF as Janish to the IF. Neither horrible, but neither 1st string options.

I also think that Stubbs has more potential to grow as an offensive player than Janish ever will. But I do agree that right now at least they are comparable players... and that even at that level, Stubbs is a vast improvement over his precursor.

Kc61
08-23-2009, 01:45 AM
I also think that Stubbs has more potential to grow as an offensive player than Janish ever will. But I do agree that right now at least they are comparable players... and that even at that level, Stubbs is a vast improvement over his precursor.

Stubbs is hitting .118 right now, he's not yet a "vast improvement" over anybody. We need to give him a full trial, and the Reds should, but the jury is definitely out on his ability to make contact with major league pitching.

Increasingly it is clear to me that Dickerson is the best choice to start most games in CF next year. Funny because folks used to ask on the minor league forum if Stubbs will disappoint and "only" be "another Dickerson." Right now, I see we'd settle for "another Dickerson" offensively. Chris has done a very decent job getting on base.

The Reds seem disinclined to play Dickerson in CF, but he seems to be the best offensive option out there, he certainly gets on base, and he holds his own defensively. I've never understood the Reds reluctance to give him that position, at least against righty pitching, in light of his performance to date.

RedEye
08-23-2009, 01:50 AM
Stubbs is hitting .118 right now, he's not yet a "vast improvement" over anybody. We need to give him time, and the Reds should, but the jury is out.


Absolutely, the jury is out--especially after less than a week's worth of games. I would say, though, that Stubbs' outfield defense and his contract alone go quite a long way to making him a "vast improvement" over the Taveras trainwreck. If he hits only the same (which isn't asking much), he's the hands down winner.

I agree, though, that Dickerson is probably the best known quantity for CF at this point. At some level, I also can't believe that's the level the team has sunk to...

osuceltic
08-23-2009, 11:10 AM
It's early, but Stubbs's reputation on defense certainly seems legit. That was a nice catch last night. Not spectacular, but the kind of play that gives Dickerson problems. Stubbs covers a lot of ground and does it smoothly -- in control and ready to make a play when he gets where he's going. Even on ground balls, he gets to it quickly and fields it in position to make a throw. Little things. Anyway, I love good defense, especially in CF, at SS and at C. I can watch great defenders at those positions all day long.

Stubbs might be a great defender. We don't have great defenders at SS or C. Gonzo was very good, and Janish is pretty good himself, but neither is elite (Gonzo may have been once). I think the difference is pretty noticeable when a guy is legitimately great. Again, it's early, but I think the difference between Stubbs and Dickerson defensively is at least as great as the difference between Dickerson and Taveras (which speaks volumes about Taveras).

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the bat with Stubbs. He has a short-armed swing -- doesn't extend his arms. That's why the power is so limited. You see he has it when he's out in front and his arms are extended, but when he hits the ball deeper in the zone, he's not generating any power. I don't know. I hope he proves me wrong, but I think he's going to come up short with the bat.

RedEye
08-23-2009, 12:38 PM
Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the bat with Stubbs. He has a short-armed swing -- doesn't extend his arms. That's why the power is so limited. You see he has it when he's out in front and his arms are extended, but when he hits the ball deeper in the zone, he's not generating any power. I don't know. I hope he proves me wrong, but I think he's going to come up short with the bat.

If he continues to get on base at a reasonable clip, he'll be useful no matter how his power turns out. I still think he could eventually develop 15-20 HR power as he eases into the ML game, even with that swing, but we'll see.

osuceltic
08-23-2009, 12:40 PM
If he continues to get on base at a reasonable clip, he'll be useful no matter how his power turns out. I still think he could eventually develop 15-20 HR power as he eases into the ML game, even with that swing, but we'll see.

I'm just saying that's a big "if" at this point. If you can't hit for power and you also struggle to make contact, like Stubbs, that's a tough combination to overcome. Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong. I'm rooting hard for the guy -- I love the way he plays CF.

RedEye
08-23-2009, 01:07 PM
I'm just saying that's a big "if" at this point. If you can't hit for power and you also struggle to make contact, like Stubbs, that's a tough combination to overcome. Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong. I'm rooting hard for the guy -- I love the way he plays CF.

I agree. And, in the spirit of my original thread title, you are exactly right. What we see of Stubbs right now is a great-fielding, good-speed OF who knows how to take a walk and has a serious lack of power. That is, he's been as advertised so far.

11larkin11
08-23-2009, 07:19 PM
I'm just saying that's a big "if" at this point. If you can't hit for power and you also struggle to make contact, like Stubbs, that's a tough combination to overcome. Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong. I'm rooting hard for the guy -- I love the way he plays CF.

Dude has 3 hits, all XBH.

11larkin11
08-23-2009, 07:19 PM
BTW, don't know if this has been mentioned, but on milb.com Stubbs is featured on their "Movin On Up" feature on their homepage, but the picture is of Sutton, not Stubbs

GAC
08-23-2009, 08:52 PM
I wanna see how much Baker plays Stubbs and gives him ABs for the remainder of the season.

Baker just doesn't get it at all. He'll say "I gotta give everybody playing time to keep them fresh." :rolleyes:

Heath
08-23-2009, 09:03 PM
Could Stubbs project to be an Aaron Rowand-type?

RedEye
08-23-2009, 09:09 PM
Could Stubbs project to be an Aaron Rowand-type?

I was under the impression that Stubbs was a much better fielder than Rowand... but I could be wrong. Offensively, I think Rowand struggles somewhat with OBP, but he did have a good power-speed combo, at least in his prime. I think the Mike Cameron comp, although hackneyed, might be more appropriate.

RedEye
08-23-2009, 09:10 PM
Could Stubbs project to be an Aaron Rowand-type?

A player I've often thought might be comparable is Steve Finley. As a young player, Finley was all over the field with good speed and great defense. His power didn't develop until much later.

traderumor
08-23-2009, 09:30 PM
A player I've often thought might be comparable is Steve Finley. As a young player, Finley was all over the field with good speed and great defense. His power didn't develop until much later.Hmmm, wonder why that was ;)

RedEye
08-23-2009, 09:32 PM
Hmmm, wonder why that was ;)

Yeah, I've heard those accusations about Finley, too. I hope it isn't true. He was also a useful player without the power though... and one that might be a realistic comp for Stubbs IMO.

WMR
08-24-2009, 03:32 AM
It's early, but Stubbs's reputation on defense certainly seems legit. That was a nice catch last night. Not spectacular, but the kind of play that gives Dickerson problems. Stubbs covers a lot of ground and does it smoothly -- in control and ready to make a play when he gets where he's going. Even on ground balls, he gets to it quickly and fields it in position to make a throw. Little things. Anyway, I love good defense, especially in CF, at SS and at C. I can watch great defenders at those positions all day long.

Stubbs might be a great defender. We don't have great defenders at SS or C. Gonzo was very good, and Janish is pretty good himself, but neither is elite (Gonzo may have been once). I think the difference is pretty noticeable when a guy is legitimately great. Again, it's early, but I think the difference between Stubbs and Dickerson defensively is at least as great as the difference between Dickerson and Taveras (which speaks volumes about Taveras).

Unfortunately, I'm not seeing the bat with Stubbs. He has a short-armed swing -- doesn't extend his arms. That's why the power is so limited. You see he has it when he's out in front and his arms are extended, but when he hits the ball deeper in the zone, he's not generating any power. I don't know. I hope he proves me wrong, but I think he's going to come up short with the bat.

Gonzalez hasn't been a 'very good' defender for a couple years now. He's solid as long as the ball is hit within a couple feet of him.

osuceltic
08-24-2009, 11:10 AM
Gonzalez hasn't been a 'very good' defender for a couple years now. He's solid as long as the ball is hit within a couple feet of him.

Typical RedsZone hyperbole. His range isn't outstanding, but there's so much more to the position than that. Gonzo is great around second base, making the turn on the double play. He's good at feeding the second baseman when starting the double play. He's a good cutoff man. Handles plays to his left or right well (granted, without tremendous range). Reliable arm, which eliminates those two-base errors.

There's just so much more to that position than you're seeing.

westofyou
08-24-2009, 11:13 AM
Typical RedsZone hyperbole. His range isn't outstanding, but there's so much more to the position than that. Gonzo is great around second base, making the turn on the double play. He's good at feeding the second baseman when starting the double play. He's a good cutoff man. Handles plays to his left or right well (granted, without tremendous range). Reliable arm, which eliminates those two-base errors.

There's just so much more to that position than you're seeing.

Yep, SS is a mystical position that eludes most of the eyes in the stadium, except the guys in the dugout. AG may have lost range (who doesn't as they age?) but he's hardly a piece of dead meat in the field.

Hence why he's now playing in the Fens.

edabbs44
08-24-2009, 11:17 AM
Typical RedsZone hyperbole. His range isn't outstanding, but there's so much more to the position than that. Gonzo is great around second base, making the turn on the double play. He's good at feeding the second baseman when starting the double play. He's a good cutoff man. Handles plays to his left or right well (granted, without tremendous range). Reliable arm, which eliminates those two-base errors.

There's just so much more to that position than you're seeing.

Great points here. Stats are good but don't show everything. Here's a perfect example from this weekend:


Helton safe at home thanks to Garko's cutoff decision
The Denver Post
Posted: 08/24/2009 01:00:00 AM MDT


Todd Helton ran through a stop sign in the sixth inning as if the police were chasing him. He appeared to be dead at the plate when the Giants' Nate Schierholtz delivered a rocket from right field. Inexplicably, first baseman Ryan Garko cut off the throw, leaving Helton to beat the relay for the Rockies' first run as catcher Bengie Molina raised his arms in disbelief. "(Garko) knows he made a bad decision. I talked to him," Giants manager Bruce Bochy said.

WMR
08-24-2009, 11:37 AM
Typical RedsZone hyperbole. His range isn't outstanding, but there's so much more to the position than that. Gonzo is great around second base, making the turn on the double play. He's good at feeding the second baseman when starting the double play. He's a good cutoff man. Handles plays to his left or right well (granted, without tremendous range). Reliable arm, which eliminates those two-base errors.

There's just so much more to that position than you're seeing.

Typical RZ hyperbole. The same explanations I heard by those attempting to justify Juan Castro.

And AG is playing for the Sox because they were desperate for a SS and he can actually field balls that are hit within a couple feet of him, something that their other shortstops failed at consistently. Calling AG a 'very good' SS at this point is setting the bar for shortstops very low indeed.

Patrick Bateman
08-24-2009, 12:20 PM
Typical RedsZone hyperbole. His range isn't outstanding, but there's so much more to the position than that. Gonzo is great around second base, making the turn on the double play. He's good at feeding the second baseman when starting the double play. He's a good cutoff man. Handles plays to his left or right well (granted, without tremendous range). Reliable arm, which eliminates those two-base errors.

There's just so much more to that position than you're seeing.

And here I thought WMR was being easy on Gonzalez.

WMR
08-24-2009, 12:27 PM
And here I thought WMR was being easy on Gonzalez.

:lol:

BRM
08-27-2009, 02:52 PM
CF Drew Stubbs is batting .156 since his call-up on Aug. 19. He has two walks and 10 strikeouts, including four on Wednesday. Baker didn't think Stubbs was pressing too much.

"I don't think he's trying too hard," Baker said. "I just think he's taking too much - too many fastballs. It puts you in strikeout situations. Everybody talks about being deep in the count all the time. That's not good for everybody. To go deep in the count, you have to be a pretty good two-strike hitter. In the minors, he was still prone to the strikeouts."

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/

RedsManRick
08-27-2009, 04:30 PM
Dusty makes a fair point. However, he clearly tends to under-appreciate the fact that some people just aren't that good at recognizing pitches and/or making contact. In these sorts of comments, he always treats those skills as if they were a matter of choice.

11larkin11
08-27-2009, 04:51 PM
I also think he's taking way too many pitches. He isn't taking borderline pitches, he's taking 0-1 fastballs down the heart of the plate

dougdirt
08-27-2009, 07:44 PM
Dusty makes a fair point. However, he clearly tends to under-appreciate the fact that some people just aren't that good at recognizing pitches and/or making contact. In these sorts of comments, he always treats those skills as if they were a matter of choice.

This time Dusty is right though. It was my complaint about Stubbs in AAA this year as well. He looks to get deep into the count, but in doing so looks at pitches absolutely 100% right down the middle of the plate. Stubbs is a guy who is going to swing and miss his fair share, he shouldn't look at strikes down the middle of the plate simply to 'work the count'.

Brutus
08-27-2009, 07:47 PM
This time Dusty is right though. It was my complaint about Stubbs in AAA this year as well. He looks to get deep into the count, but in doing so looks at pitches absolutely 100% right down the middle of the plate. Stubbs is a guy who is going to swing and miss his fair share, he shouldn't look at strikes down the middle of the plate simply to 'work the count'.

That was my biggest complaint about a certain left fielder. I love a walk. Sometimes hitters are overly selective and miss a pitch in doing so. Strikeouts aren't inherently evil, but a BA and the BA-driven aspects of OBP-SLG-OPS could go up if you are willing to swing at good pitches early in the count, when you get them.

I think the eagerness to preach selectivity and walks sometimes works against young hitters. They get gun-shy about swinging at pitches they could crush.

WMR
08-27-2009, 08:29 PM
Please don't bring Adam Dunn into this.

I think it's pretty clear he knows what he is doing. He has tried to alter his approach before, with disastrous results.

RedsManRick
08-27-2009, 08:36 PM
This time Dusty is right though. It was my complaint about Stubbs in AAA this year as well. He looks to get deep into the count, but in doing so looks at pitches absolutely 100% right down the middle of the plate. Stubbs is a guy who is going to swing and miss his fair share, he shouldn't look at strikes down the middle of the plate simply to 'work the count'.

Has Stubbs said that that's why he takes those pitches, specifically to work the count, or is that an assumption? If he's trying to work the count and taking balls he believes he could otherwise hit well, that's definitely a problem. It's just that unless I hear from the player otherwise, I just have a hard time believing that any hitter would do that. "It was a great pitch and I probably could have crushed it, but I wanted to work the count instead..."

People said the same thing about Dunn purposely taking good pitches (good for him, not just strikes) and he basically said "if I think I can hit it well, I swing. If I don't, I don't." I'd be very surprised to hear that Stubbs wasn't merely taking the same approach and just doesn't have great pitch recognition. Of course, no hitter likes to admit that he has a problem recognizing pitches or Phillips would fess up to not knowing what a slider looks like.

dougdirt
08-27-2009, 08:38 PM
Has Stubbs said that that's why he takes those pitches, specifically to work the count, or is that an assumption? If he's trying to work the count and taking balls he believes he could otherwise hit well, that's definitely a problem. It's just that unless I hear from the player otherwise, I just have a hard time believing that any hitter would do that. "It was a great pitch and I probably could have crushed it, but I wanted to work the count instead..."

Certainly an assumption on my part. However watching him, in AAA he hardly would swing the bat before seeing 2 or 3 pitches regardless of how good they were (of course he would swing on 0-2, but if he were 1-1 and it was right down broadway... he didn't swing all that often).

RedsManRick
08-27-2009, 09:25 PM
Certainly an assumption on my part. However watching him, in AAA he hardly would swing the bat before seeing 2 or 3 pitches regardless of how good they were (of course he would swing on 0-2, but if he were 1-1 and it was right down broadway... he didn't swing all that often).

You certainly could be right, but how come we jump to that assumption so quickly? It just seems counter-intuitive to me -- I've never heard a ballplayer say he'd rather work the count than hit a meat ball. Shouldn't we be asking about his general pitch recognition, his vision, or his hand-eye coordination? Maybe he's right eye dominant and needs to open his stance. Maybe he should start working on the tennis ball drills Evan Longoria does.

But I doubt telling him to swing more early in the count is going produce better results. We know how it worked (or didn't) with Dunn. There just seems to be this ingrained and acceptable bias against guys who don't swing at everything but and yet still have contact issues for whatever reason. It gets painted first as an approach problem and often winds up turning in to a critique on their character. (Branyan and Cust have both been called lazy for their approach). Often it gets described as "trying to walk" when nobody has described that as their own approach. Baker in particular was a very good contact hitter and simply not understand that guys may not have the same talent he did in that area and that they've built their approach to maximize their talents.

If you get the chance Doug, I'd love to hear what Stubbs has to say on the matter -- especially if you can be specific on the question about his decision making process in the box so it's not just a typical invitation for a canned response about being aggressive.

dougdirt
08-27-2009, 09:35 PM
Rick, I don't think Stubbs has pitch recognition issues. He doesn't often swing at pitches out of the zone like someone who would have that problem. I guess I just to the conclusion so quickly because of what I have seen. I have probably seen him hit 300 times over the past year and he has swung at the first pitch of an at bat probably 20 times. I think there is a difference in not swinging at a pitch you can't drive and not swinging at a fat pitch over the heart of the plate. I think Stubbs takes a few too many fat pitches early in the count simply because its early in the count.

TheNext44
08-27-2009, 10:05 PM
Without asking him, it's impossible to know for sure why Stubbs takes so many fat strikes. But it would be a very big pitch recognition problem if he thought that some of the meatballs that he has taken were going to be balls. He also seems to watch it right into the catchers glove, which makes me think he's taking all the way on that pitch.

But he also has swung at a enough pitches early in the count to discount the theory that he is always trying to work a walk first and foremost. I think the most likely explanation is that he is young, inexperienced and doesn't have a coherent strategy when comes to the plate yet. He's still learning the art of hitting, which is not that easy. This might be one reason why the team was hesitant to call him up right now.

bucksfan2
08-28-2009, 09:53 AM
To me Stubbs looks a little uncomfortable at the plate right now. It was the same thing with Dickerson earlier this season. He is taking pitches that are good pitches because he is really uncertain of the pitch and probably doesn't want to make an out early in the count. He looks tentative at the plate, and that will probably start to fade as he gets more and more at bats.

nate
08-28-2009, 10:27 AM
I have a question.

Why

must

he

bat

leadoff?

Yes, I know all the "Dusty" related answers.

I suppose my question is rhetorical.

Nevermind!

lollipopcurve
08-28-2009, 10:29 AM
I don't know, he's hard to get a read on for me. Obviously, still a work in progress. It looks to me like he may struggle some with his mechanics/swing. At times he looks like a hands hitter and at other times you can see he's using more leverage. Not easy for a guy as tall as Stubbs to get it all in synch.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 11:09 AM
That was my biggest complaint about a certain left fielder. I love a walk. Sometimes hitters are overly selective and miss a pitch in doing so. Strikeouts aren't inherently evil, but a BA and the BA-driven aspects of OBP-SLG-OPS could go up if you are willing to swing at good pitches early in the count, when you get them.

I think the eagerness to preach selectivity and walks sometimes works against young hitters. They get gun-shy about swinging at pitches they could crush.

Is it possible that Stubbs walks due to getting lucky with guesses that balls are out of the zone?

He'll let 1 meat pitch go by, but then he seems to at least foul off subsequent meat pitches, which then forces pitchers to attempt to nibble (why? I have no idea... they should attack a guy with contact issues, no?), and by them nibbling, he draws his walk.

He doesn't seem to recognize pitches as well as he should, which says to me he isn't ready for The Show quite yet.

Spring~Fields
08-28-2009, 12:41 PM
I have a question.

Why

must

he

bat

leadoff?

Yes, I know all the "Dusty" related answers.

I suppose my question is rhetorical.

Nevermind!

Mulitple Choice ?
A. Bias

B. Superstitions

C. Fixations

D. Obsessions

E. Confirmation Bias
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Confirmation_bias

F. All the above

RedEye
08-28-2009, 12:43 PM
Is it possible that Stubbs walks due to getting lucky with guesses that balls are out of the zone?


I think that's possible. I suppose in the majors, pitchers will take advantage of that, too. Perhaps we are about to see Stubbs hit his wall. Or, perhaps we are about to see him adjust to a new level once again. Only time will tell.

RedEye
08-28-2009, 12:44 PM
Here's another question -- now that Stubbs has reached the major leagues, can he still be considered a complete "bust"?

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 12:50 PM
Here's another question -- now that Stubbs has reached the major leagues, can he still be considered a complete "bust"?

Just b/c he's in a crappy organization where he can get promoted to The Show doesn't mean he's ready for The Show, ya know?

Drew Stubbs would still be in the minors for good teams, or would have been traded by good teams to get actual talent to help them for a playoff push.

Instead, he's in the Reds organization, and he's on the 25 man roster b/c injures have exposed our lack of depth, thus the promotion.

Given his age, he should be more developed than he is, so in that respect, I'd still list him in the "bust" category.

We don't know what he'll do over the next 5 years, but unless he makes dramatic improvements in his game, I think he'll be hard pressed to lose the "bust" label.

flyer85
08-28-2009, 01:39 PM
small sample size but the early return on BBs is not encouraging.

WebScorpion
08-29-2009, 04:02 AM
At each level Stubbs has taken at least a full season to adjust offensively. If not for injuries to the Reds outfield, he would still be in Louisville. I don't see him doing a lot offensively until some time in 2011. Think of him like the hitting version of Homer Bailey...some players just take longer to mature. That said, he's the best centerfielder (defensively) I've seen in Cincinnati since Eric Davis. Junior was a shadow of his former self by the time he arrived.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 09:36 AM
Seems deserving of additional conversation now that Stubbs has 3 HRs in about 65 ABs. Obviously, the sample size is still way too small to make judgments about the long term, but my guess is that the optimism/pessimism ratio is rising.

Current line, after 2 hits in 5 of his last 6 games: .246/.281/.426/.707 20Ks/3 BBs

All of his HRs have been off righties. The one he hit to right-center off Chavez was pretty impressive -- several rows back, it gets out at a lot of parks, not just GAB.

His defense looks good to me, but I have my doubts about it being exceptional. Time will tell. Baserunning is a strength, though I think they're going to want him to get a little more aggressive with SBs.

At the beginning of his callup, I said I didn't expect great things, but I wanted to see flashes. The notion being that this would be an important learning experience, and that if his talent could shine through at times, then he could take something positive into 2010 along with knowledge about the kind of adjustments he'll need to make. So far, he has shown flashes -- primarily his power, and that's very encouraging. My sense is that he's streaky, and he could very well go 1-20 over the next 5 games. But I'm more than satisfied so far that his tools all translate to the major leagues.

jojo
09-01-2009, 09:38 AM
20Ks/3 BBs seems to be the spoiled nut that might ruin the barrel and I think the genesis of alot of people concerns.

Sea Ray
09-01-2009, 09:42 AM
But I'm more than satisfied so far that his tools all translate to the major leagues.

I am particularing impressed with his tools. He has a very quick bat so I suspect that bat speed will lend itself to a few HRs. His defensive skills are also impressive to me.

No question he needs to improve on his pitch selection at the plate and cut down on strike outs. He has shown the ability to improve his game at every stop so let's leave him in Cincinnati for awhile and see how he does

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 10:05 AM
20Ks/3 BBs seems to be the spoiled nut that might ruin the barrel and I think the genesis of alot of people concerns.

Yeah, it's a concern, but the feeling was that his *good* plate discipline #s in the minors would not translate due to his lack of power. Now that he has shown he can hurt you with one swing, it could be that pitchers will start to work more carefully.

Time will tell. Stubbs does appear to have good ball/strike recognition (doesn't swing at many outside the zone), so the plate discipline skillset seems fine. If he can be more aggressive (and successful) early in the count on hittable pitches -- as they are instructing him, apparently -- the K/BB ratio is likely to improve.

HokieRed
09-01-2009, 10:08 AM
For a guy who was, I think, not quite ready, he's off to a fine start. Speed, baserunning, defense are all major pluses. Additionally, and Patrick Bateman (formerly known as a traded Reds ex five-tooler) said the most important thing about his minor league career some time back: at each level Stubbs showed himself able to make adjustments, learn what he needed to do, improve himself and put in credible years. Some guys can just keep getting better in ways that others cannot. I think there's evidence Stubbs can be one of those players. Whether he can get to a better balance of K/BB is probably the most important thing to watch.

TRF
09-01-2009, 10:28 AM
and Patrick Bateman (formerly known as a traded Reds ex five-tooler) said the most important thing about his minor league career some time back: at each level Stubbs showed himself able to make adjustments,

Sorry but Patrick Bateman is flat wrong.

Stubbs didn't make adjustments in the FSL.

He had a hot start at AA, and quickly cooled after the first week. We was very good his initial call up to AAA (2008) and was abysmal in the AFL.

2009 has been an up and down season for him. hard to say if he's making adjustments, if it's bad luck or what, but he had only 1 good month, one ok month and a horrible April, June and August. His last 28 games before promotion: 0.203 0.266 0.271 0.537 with a .273 BABIP. Even if that BABIP were normalized to .300, it would still be awful.

His LD% for 2009 by month has been very consistent, however, when his FB% creeps up, he seems to hit worse. When his GB% is higher, his numbers rise.

This screams no power to me. Which is ok, if he can make that work. We'll see.

I really hope he proves me wrong, and he did have a great day yesterday.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2009, 10:35 AM
IMO Stubbs doesn't look ready for The Show, but he's no worse than what we were trotting out there, so might as well give him the chance to sink or swim, no?

RedEye
09-01-2009, 12:10 PM
For a guy who was, I think, not quite ready, he's off to a fine start. Speed, baserunning, defense are all major pluses. Additionally, and Patrick Bateman (formerly known as a traded Reds ex five-tooler) said the most important thing about his minor league career some time back: at each level Stubbs showed himself able to make adjustments, learn what he needed to do, improve himself and put in credible years. Some guys can just keep getting better in ways that others cannot. I think there's evidence Stubbs can be one of those players. Whether he can get to a better balance of K/BB is probably the most important thing to watch.

Wait a minute... Patrick Bateman is Austin Kearns? Whoa.

PuffyPig
09-01-2009, 12:29 PM
Sorry but Patrick Bateman is flat wrong.




Patrick Batemen may be many things, but he is never "flat wrong".....

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 01:32 PM
Sorry but Patrick Bateman is flat wrong.

Stubbs didn't make adjustments in the FSL.

You watched Stubbs in the FSL last year how many times?
Stubbs in April in the FSL - 12 walks and 28 strikeouts.
Stubbs the rest of the year in the FSL - 38 walks and 54 strikeouts. The only thing Stubbs didn't do as well was hit for the power that he did in April. So no, Bateman wasn't flat wrong. Stubbs improved his plate discipline in the FSL as the season went on.

Patrick Bateman
09-01-2009, 02:34 PM
Sorry but Patrick Bateman is flat wrong.

Stubbs didn't make adjustments in the FSL.

He had a hot start at AA, and quickly cooled after the first week. We was very good his initial call up to AAA (2008) and was abysmal in the AFL.

2009 has been an up and down season for him. hard to say if he's making adjustments, if it's bad luck or what, but he had only 1 good month, one ok month and a horrible April, June and August. His last 28 games before promotion: 0.203 0.266 0.271 0.537 with a .273 BABIP. Even if that BABIP were normalized to .300, it would still be awful.

His LD% for 2009 by month has been very consistent, however, when his FB% creeps up, he seems to hit worse. When his GB% is higher, his numbers rise.

This screams no power to me. Which is ok, if he can make that work. We'll see.

I really hope he proves me wrong, and he did have a great day yesterday.

Of course, that's not at all what Bateman actually said.

I believe Patrick Bateman was talking about Stubbs' ability, that despite never posting stats that would suggest he merited a call-up, to continuously keep his stats up with every promotion. He wasn't supposed to do anything in Dayton after watching his teammates outhit him in Billings. Sarasota, the notorious pitcher's league was supposed to eat him up after posting underwhelming stats for a player his age in Dayton. But his stats were relatively consistent. Chatanooga was the next step he was supposed to drop dead at, but of course, the same procedure happended. Then it was Louisville, one step away from the majors. It was said that he didnt get enough time at AA to prove himself, and that the promotion was premature. But again, over nearly 500 at-bats in AAA, his numbers kept afloat in the .775 OPS range.

Usually when a player posts underwhelming stats every stop (especially when said player has never been considered young for his level), it's expected that the task will be much more difficult with every rung of the ladder. Perhaps the major leagues will be the nail in the coffin, but he's stayed afloat at every stop, even though people have questioned his ability to improve.

Bateman don't really care about hot starts and whatever. Bateman is not even going to talk about that stuff. It's just overanalyzing a point that Bateman wasn't even making in the first place. Bateman thinks that with most players that stuff like that is more due to randomness, and I don't think Stubbs is any different. He's had his hot and cold streaks like anyone else. It's always been said that there has never been a really good comp for Stubbs (based on his minor league numbers and the fact he came out of a major college program), which I think is true, but Stubbs has also gotten a heck of a lot further than the he was supposed to based on that notion.

In the end, despite his age, despite the lack of earth shattering stats, he managed to make the adjustments and improvements necessary to perform acceptably at the next level (in aggregate), when his track record suggested he shouldn't have. If he continues that trend, and admittedly the next one is the hardest, we will have ourselves an above average starting CF, as he was in the minors. One that can actually get on base and hit leadoff, have some spare power, and do all of those little things that Willy Taveras was supposed to do.

HokieRed
09-01-2009, 02:55 PM
I hope I was fair to Bateman in my original post. I'd actually made a similar point a number of times over on the minor league forum. Stubbs has shown the ability to adjust, add to his game, and move to the next level credibly. I believe Bateman attributed "baseball intelligence" to him, and it seems to me that may be a possible explanation.

Patrick Bateman
09-01-2009, 02:59 PM
I hope I was fair to Bateman in my original post. I'd actually made a similar point a number of times over on the minor league forum. Stubbs has shown the ability to adjust, add to his game, and move to the next level credibly. I believe Bateman attributed "baseball intelligence" to him, and it seems to me that may be a possible explanation.

Oh I think you represented my point just fine.

traderumor
09-01-2009, 02:59 PM
That HR to RCF had a pretty sweet swing put to it and that ball jumped out of there. One thing about toolsy players--they have a lot of talent, so they can learn new tricks through making adjustments that less talented players cannot.

M2
09-01-2009, 03:01 PM
But again, over nearly 500 at-bats in AAA, his numbers kept afloat in the .775 OPS range.

His AAA OPS is .731 (.713 this season) and it was dropping as he spent more time at that level. I suspect had he spent enough time in AA, what you'd see is fairly straight downward OPS trend as he advanced up the ladder.

He hasn't completely fallen off the cliff (e.g. under .700 OPS), but he's inched quite close to it. In the minors he's now a standard deviation behind where he'd need to be in the majors. Give him enough time in the majors and he probably drops two standard deviations behind what the team needs him to be, at a minimum.

Maybe he'll become a Chris Dickerson as he matures, but Dickerson's a 4th-5th OF type. That's not a bad thing to be and sometimes guys like that find themselves starting on good teams. But his ceiling is low, that's the main thing. Maybe he finally discovers how to use that frame of his for consistent leverage and then we can raise his bar, yet that's probably a few years down the road if it's coming at all.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2009, 03:04 PM
His AAA OPS is .731 (.713 this season) and it was dropping as he spent more time at that level. I suspect had he spent enough time in AA, what you'd see is fairly straight downward OPS trend as he advanced up the ladder.

He hasn't completely fallen off the cliff (e.g. under .700 OPS), but he's inched quite close to it. In the minors he's now a standard deviation behind where he'd need to be in the majors. Give him enough time in the majors and he probably drops two standard deviations behind what the team needs him to be, at a minimum.

Maybe he'll become a Chris Dickerson as he matures, but Dickerson's a 4th-5th OF type. That's not a bad thing to be and sometimes guys like that find themselves starting on good teams. But his ceiling is low, that's the main thing. Maybe he finally discovers how to use that frame of his for consistent leverage and then we can raise his bar, yet that's probably a few years down the road if it's coming at all.

At least the Reds are trying to corner the market in 4th-5th OFers.

So they've got that goin' for them....

Tom Servo
09-01-2009, 03:10 PM
I vote that from now on the actual outfielder Austin Kearns be refered to as Patrick Bateman.

KoryMac5
09-01-2009, 03:12 PM
Stubbs has had 5 two hit games over his last 6 played. Baseball is a game of adjustments and I would say so far Stubbs has done a good job of adapting to MLB pitching. The problem a lot of prospects have (Bruce) is that they can't make the second or third adjustments needed when the league catches up to you. I don't think we will know what we have with Drew Stubbs until sometime next season.

LvJ
09-01-2009, 03:19 PM
Got that OPS up over .700 last night :)

Patrick Bateman
09-01-2009, 03:27 PM
His AAA OPS is .731 (.713 this season) and it was dropping as he spent more time at that level. I suspect had he spent enough time in AA, what you'd see is fairly straight downward OPS trend as he advanced up the ladder.

My bad on the AAA OPS. I suppose I was a little careless with the calculator there.


He hasn't completely fallen off the cliff (e.g. under .700 OPS), but he's inched quite close to it. In the minors he's now a standard deviation behind where he'd need to be in the majors. Give him enough time in the majors and he probably drops two standard deviations behind what the team needs him to be, at a minimum.

I don't know about the AAA part. If Stubbs could actually put up a .730 OPS in the big leagues, with the corresponding .350 OBP, with well above average defense, and great baserunning numbers (two things I don't consider a stretch), I would have no problem having him as a mainstay in the line-up, especially considering that he could somewhat platoon with Dickerson in CF (Dickerson would cut into his at-bats against righties). Stubbs could at least develop some decent platoon splits.



But his ceiling is low, that's the main thing. Maybe he finally discovers how to use that frame of his for consistent leverage and then we can raise his bar, yet that's probably a few years down the road if it's coming at all

I think as far as hitting goes his ceiling is limited. It's hard to see him improving a ton this late in the stages. But as an overall player, Stubbs has enough actual positives (not the fake ones associated with guys like Pierre and Taveras) that his bat does not have to be an average to even above average starting CF.

For instance, compare that with what Brandon Phillips brings to the table (a player I know that you value). As an overall hitter, Phillips is not THAT good. He's a .775 OPS type of bat, which is mainly built up of low OBP and high SLG). But when you consider the fielding and baserunning aspects that he brings to the table, he's pretty obviously an above average starter.

I think Stubbs has those same non-hitting quitting qualities that Phillips has (perhaps even moreso). So where does Stubbs' bat have to develop to make him a similarly above average starting CF? That's the reason I've always liked Stubbs. Surprises in development happen all the time. As far as Stubbs goes, he needs less surprises than most guys. I'm thinking if he can put up a line of .350/.400/.750, then he's an above average starter.

Based on his track record, is that line something that should be expected out of Stubbs?

Not quite, but I think if he makes the same improvements he has at every step, then he'll be within striking distance.

traderumor
09-01-2009, 03:34 PM
I vote that from now on the actual outfielder Austin Kearns be refered to as Patrick Bateman.If he ever plays again, we will ;)

bucksfan2
09-01-2009, 03:37 PM
His AAA OPS is .731 (.713 this season) and it was dropping as he spent more time at that level. I suspect had he spent enough time in AA, what you'd see is fairly straight downward OPS trend as he advanced up the ladder.

He hasn't completely fallen off the cliff (e.g. under .700 OPS), but he's inched quite close to it. In the minors he's now a standard deviation behind where he'd need to be in the majors. Give him enough time in the majors and he probably drops two standard deviations behind what the team needs him to be, at a minimum.

Quite frankly I don't really care what his minor league starts were right now. He is with the Reds now and what he does counts.

From many we heard how Stubbs had no power. How pitchers could just groove a fastball down the middle because he couldn't punish it. Well in his brief 63 at bats for the Reds he had 3 HR's. He has shown the ability to hit a ball out of the park when he squares it up.

Stubbs may always struggle with the strike outs. But I would imagine the more at bats he gets the better in line his K/BB ratio will get. Over the first couple of games he looked a little tentative at the plate, he does look a little more relaxed now, and he should continue to become better at the plate. When he gets on base, his skills as a base runner are as advertised.

M2
09-01-2009, 03:44 PM
I'm thinking if he can put up a line of .350/.400/.750, then he's an above average starter.

I agree with the theory. A Shane Victorino type would be sweet, but Victorino is a vastly different ballplayer, one who regularly hits .280+ to generate the OPS numbers you're talking about.

M2
09-01-2009, 03:46 PM
Quite frankly I don't really care what his minor league starts were right now. He is with the Reds now and what he does counts.

Of course you don't care about his minor league stats. If you paid attention to them, you'd have come to terms with the kind of player Stubbs is rather than the one you'd have him be. People didn't care about Willy Taveras' stats before he came to the Reds either, iirc you might have been one of them.

osuceltic
09-01-2009, 03:49 PM
One thing about toolsy players--they have a lot of talent, so they can learn new tricks through making adjustments that less talented players cannot.
That's what I'm hoping. Great athletes often up their performance level as they are challenged. I'm hoping Stubbs is that kind of guy. Athletically, he's pretty damn impressive. Just needs to work on that upper body a little.


Maybe he'll become a Chris Dickerson as he matures, but Dickerson's a 4th-5th OF type. That's not a bad thing to be and sometimes guys like that find themselves starting on good teams. But his ceiling is low, that's the main thing. Maybe he finally discovers how to use that frame of his for consistent leverage and then we can raise his bar, yet that's probably a few years down the road if it's coming at all.

The difference is Dickerson is a tweener. Not a good enough defender to play CF and not a good enough hitter to play a corner. Stubbs is no tweener. The guy is one of the best defensive center fielders in the league right now. He's beyond impressive out there. Now ... will he hit enough even for that position? I don't know. But I think the minimum he needs to provide offensively is lower than you think, because he is going to provide exceptional defense at a premium position. He'll take away a lot of runs out there.

I've said a couple of times that I'm not sold on him as a hitter. I still feel that way. But I'm not closing the book on him by any means.

OnBaseMachine
09-01-2009, 03:53 PM
Dickerson isn't good enough defensively to play CF? Seriously? Are we watching two different Chris Dickerson's? Dickerson is an excellent defensive CFer from what I've seen, and the stats back me up on that too. In 215.2 career innings in CF, Dickerson has a +7.1 UZR, which equates to +35.6 over 150 games. I think if he played everyday he would be one of the top five defensive center fielders in the game. His range is terrific.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 03:56 PM
Of course you don't care about his minor league stats. If you paid attention to them, you'd have come to terms with the kind of player Stubbs is rather than the one you'd have him be. People didn't care about Willy Taveras' stats before he came to the Reds either, iirc you might have been one of them.
The problem is Willy Taveras stats told you exactly what his skills were. Drew Stubbs stats haven't always done that. His stats said he and a guy like Willy Taveras have the same power. Well that obviously isn't true and it never was. Willy Taveras needed to improve his skillset to become better, but he just doesn't have that ability/tools to do so. Drew Stubbs on the flip side needs to improve his skillset (from the minors at least) to become better and he does have that ability/tools to do so. Whether or not he actually does so is an entirely different question, but simply looking at stats aren't going to tell you the story on a lot of guys. Drew must improve his power output over what he showed in the minors to be an every day guy (at least what he showed in Louisville). You would also like to see him cut down on the K's, but if he can keep it in that 20-25% range that he showed in AAA, he can be ok if that power comes around a little more (assuming the walks stay in the 10% range that he showed in the minors).

traderumor
09-01-2009, 04:06 PM
I might add that the HR last night was on a down and away 95+ fastball, it wasn't exactly a meatball. Hopefully he meant to do that and it wasn't just blind squirrel syndrome.

M2
09-01-2009, 04:06 PM
he difference is Dickerson is a tweener. Not a good enough defender to play CF and not a good enough hitter to play a corner. Stubbs is no tweener. The guy is one of the best defensive center fielders in the league right now. He's beyond impressive out there. Now ... will he hit enough even for that position? I don't know. But I think the minimum he needs to provide offensively is lower than you think, because he is going to provide exceptional defense at a premium position. He'll take away a lot of runs out there.

I'll add a ditto to what OBM said about Dickerson's defense.

As for what a club needs from a CF, this is modern baseball. If you can't OPS .750, then you're a candidate for an upgrade. There's no shortage of guys who can go and get it in CF. Carlos Gomez and Chris Young are gifted out there. Nyjer Morgan has unreal range. If all you want is a glove, that can be had without too much trouble. It's the gloves who can also contribute at the plate who stand out.

osuceltic
09-01-2009, 04:09 PM
Dickerson isn't good enough defensively to play CF? Seriously? Are we watching two different Chris Dickerson's? Dickerson is an excellent defensive CFer from what I've seen, and the stats back me up on that too. In 215.2 career innings in CF, Dickerson has a +7.1 UZR, which equates to +35.6 over 150 games. I think if he played everyday he would be one of the top five defensive center fielders in the game. His range is terrific.

Yep, same guy. Better than Taveras, but not a great CF. I probably should have phrased that differently. He could be OK out there if he hit more--he'd be good enough. But he's average defensively in CF. He's no Stubbs. Stubbs is elite defensively. I've seen enough of him already to figure that out.

Again, will Stubbs hit enough? Don't know.

One more thought on Stubbs, and I've come to the conclusion this must be a Dusty issue (I'm not normally a Dusty-basher). When he gets on base, he needs to run. Same thing was true with Taveras. When you have a weapon like that, you have to use it.

I don't know if Dusty is giving them the red light or if he's just not giving them the go sign, but something has to change. If he's falling back on the old "he always has the green light" line, then that's a problem. Instead of trusting the player, we need to start forcing the issue and putting the steal sign on more often.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 04:10 PM
I'll add a ditto to what OBM said about Dickerson's defense.

As for what a club needs from a CF, this is modern baseball. If you can't OPS .750, then you're a candidate for an upgrade. There's no shortage of guys who can go and get it in CF. Carlos Gomez and Chris Young are gifted out there. Nyjer Morgan has unreal range. If all you want is a glove, that can be had without too much trouble. It's the gloves who can also contribute at the plate who stand out.

Sure its modern baseball, but modern baseball is still won and lost the same way. Score more than you allow. A .700 OPS player in CF can be more valuable than a .750 OPS player if the .700 OPS guy is better with the glove. Its not about offense, its about total value. Yeah, it would be great to have a guy who is on the plus side of both ledgers, but there aren't many of those guys.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 04:10 PM
I'll add a ditto to what OBM said about Dickerson's defense.

Dickerson has range, but I question his hands. I think we all need to see more of both Stubbs and CD in CF before we have a good sense of how they compare out there.

One thing we do know about CD -- he has a very hard time staying healthy. Stubbs has been durable. Health history should not be disregarded.

HokieRed
09-01-2009, 04:14 PM
If Stubbs can get to .350 OBP, then he'll be fine, IMO, as his power and the speed to make doubles will carry him to .750 easily. I think the challenge will be the .350.

osuceltic
09-01-2009, 04:17 PM
I'll add a ditto to what OBM said about Dickerson's defense.

As for what a club needs from a CF, this is modern baseball. If you can't OPS .750, then you're a candidate for an upgrade. There's no shortage of guys who can go and get it in CF. Carlos Gomez and Chris Young are gifted out there. Nyjer Morgan has unreal range. If all you want is a glove, that can be had without too much trouble. It's the gloves who can also contribute at the plate who stand out.

You have to look at the total player. If a guy is shy of that .750 OPS mark but plays elite defense at a premium position and is a great baserunner, the offensive upgrade better be huge if I'm compromising on those other areas.

CF, SS and C are different animals. Those players impact everyone else on the field. They can hide deficiencies elsewhere or expose deficiencies elsewhere. I'm not saying you can afford three offensive black holes, but if you start sacrificing defense and baserunning while chasing a few points of OPS, you're missing the forest for the trees.

LoganBuck
09-01-2009, 04:17 PM
His AAA OPS is .731 (.713 this season) and it was dropping as he spent more time at that level. I suspect had he spent enough time in AA, what you'd see is fairly straight downward OPS trend as he advanced up the ladder.


To be fair Drew Stubbs has shown himself, through his career, to be very streaky. He was at the bottom of a pitifully bad streak when he was called up. I think it is fair to say he is out of his bad streak, now. Doug has posted his month by month numbers before. It leads some people to make fun of doug, but it provides a salient point. He is as streaky as they come. The good thing is that he can draw a walk, play outstanding defense, and run the bases like a gazelle. You can bet the house that if the Reds were in contention that Drew Stubbs would have been on the playoff roster as a late inning replacement/pinch runner type. Those things are still valuable when he is slumping. The good news is that when he is cold you can put Dickerson in to give him a rest/lesson the extent his slumps hurt the lineup.

What I find humorous, is the occasional expert that claims that Chris Dickerson is the superior centerfielder. I am looking at you Doc Rodgers on 700WLW. You lose credibility. Dickerson is a darn good defender, but Stubbs is that much better. I love watching him get reads on balls to the outfield. He didn't get much praise for the catch against Ramirez in the 8th off Bailey. He read that line drive off the bat and was moving at top speed to get there. Other outfielders either don't get to that or have to dive. Stubbs caught it on the run, and did even look stressed.

osuceltic
09-01-2009, 04:20 PM
What I find humorous, is the occasional expert that claims that Chris Dickerson is the superior centerfielder. I am looking at you Doc Rodgers on 700WLW. You lose credibility. Dickerson is a darn good defender, but Stubbs is that much better. I love watching him get reads on balls to the outfield. He didn't get much praise for the catch against Ramirez in the 8th off Bailey. He read that line drive off the bat and was moving at top speed to get there. Other outfielders either don't get to that or have to dive. Stubbs caught it on the run, and did even look stressed.

Yep, it's the difference between good and great. In my opinion, it's a pretty significant difference.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 04:30 PM
Re: defense -- and I've been mainly a Stubbs supporter in this thread -- I think we have to be careful separating aesthetics from results. Time will give us what we need to know concerning just how good Stubbs is out there. For now, the ease and speed with which he moves, his height and grace, all create an impression that he is exceptional. Probably the kind of impression that Dimaggio made. It's great to watch. But what I'm waiting to see is if he can make the great play. He's made one nice play at the top of the wall in right center. Nice timing, and his height helped. Beyond that, nothing quite "wow" yet. I haven't seen every game, so I may have missed something. I know one thing for sure, he's not so good he can make everything look easy -- I want to see if he can make those plays that stretch him.

KoryMac5
09-01-2009, 04:33 PM
The other problem with Stubbs is that he was drafted a few picks before a certain frontline starter. That may happen to cloud some folks perceptions of him both from a positive and negative view point.

OnBaseMachine
09-01-2009, 04:44 PM
Yep, same guy. Better than Taveras, but not a great CF. I probably should have phrased that differently. He could be OK out there if he hit more--he'd be good enough. But he's average defensively in CF. He's no Stubbs. Stubbs is elite defensively. I've seen enough of him already to figure that out.

Again, will Stubbs hit enough? Don't know.

One more thought on Stubbs, and I've come to the conclusion this must be a Dusty issue (I'm not normally a Dusty-basher). When he gets on base, he needs to run. Same thing was true with Taveras. When you have a weapon like that, you have to use it.

I don't know if Dusty is giving them the red light or if he's just not giving them the go sign, but something has to change. If he's falling back on the old "he always has the green light" line, then that's a problem. Instead of trusting the player, we need to start forcing the issue and putting the steal sign on more often.

Dickerson is much better than average defensively in CF, IMO. In his short time in CF he's made some amazing catches. The catch he made in Milwaukee was one of the best catches I've seen by a Reds CFer in my lifetime. I think he has plus-plus range in CF, as does Stubbs.

LoganBuck
09-01-2009, 04:45 PM
Re: defense -- and I've been mainly a Stubbs supporter in this thread -- I think we have to be careful separating aesthetics from results. Time will give us what we need to know just how good Stubbs is out there. For now, the ease and speed with which he moves, his height and grace, all create an impression that he is exceptional. Probably the kind of impression that Dimaggio made. It's great to watch. But what I'm waiting to see is if he can make the great play. He's made one nice play at the top of the wall in right center. Nice timing, and his height helped. Beyond that, nothing quite "wow" yet. I haven't seen every game, so I may have missed something. I know one thing for sure, he's not so good he can make everything look easy -- I want to see if he can make those plays that stretch him.

Great defenders make difficult plays look easy, great defenders make exceptional plays every now and then. We shall see on that one.

LoganBuck
09-01-2009, 04:47 PM
Dickerson is much better than average defensively in CF. In his short time in CF he's made some amazing catches. The catch he made in Milwaukee was one of the best catches I've seen by a Reds CFer in my lifetime. I think he has plus-plus range in CF, as does Stubbs.

In my book Dickerson has plus range, and Stubbs has plus plus range. Both are good.

Do we have any decent metrics on Stubbs yet?

OnBaseMachine
09-01-2009, 04:49 PM
In my book Dickerson has plus range, and Stubbs has plus plus range. Both are good.

Do we have any decent metrics on Stubbs yet?

It's very, very early, but so far Stubbs has a UZR of +1.7 in 122 innings. That equals out to a +20.4 UZR/150. That would make him an elite defender.

lollipopcurve
09-01-2009, 04:50 PM
Great defenders make difficult plays look easy, great defenders make exceptional plays every now and then. We shall see on that one.

Agreed.

bucksfan2
09-01-2009, 05:06 PM
Great defenders make difficult plays look easy, great defenders make exceptional plays every now and then. We shall see on that one.

Exactly. The greats make the difficult plays look routine. Stubbs looks like a natural out there running after the ball. He has very long strides and moves very quickly, so much so you almost think he isn't trying as hard.

The greatest CF defender of my time was Andruw Jones in his prime. He was able to play a very shallow CF because of his ability to get a jump on the ball. If Stubbs is able to play that kind of defense it would be a huge plus to the Reds.

RedEye
09-01-2009, 05:08 PM
It's very, very early, but so far Stubbs has a UZR of +1.7 in 122 innings. That equals out to a +20.4 UZR/150. That would make him an elite defender.

So, to follow the similar discussion on the Janish thread... what would Stubbs need to hit like to make him a worthwhile member of the team? I'm assuming that if he is just a replacement-level hitter, he will be a boon to the Reds' chances.

westofyou
09-01-2009, 05:14 PM
If Stubbs is able to play that kind of defense it would be a huge plus to the Reds.

If he hit over 70 EBH to go with that defense then it would be a huge plus, as it is it's just a plus on the field if his bat is weak.

M2
09-01-2009, 05:15 PM
You have to look at the total player. If a guy is shy of that .750 OPS mark but plays elite defense at a premium position and is a great baserunner, the offensive upgrade better be huge if I'm compromising on those other areas.

CF, SS and C are different animals. Those players impact everyone else on the field. They can hide deficiencies elsewhere or expose deficiencies elsewhere. I'm not saying you can afford three offensive black holes, but if you start sacrificing defense and baserunning while chasing a few points of OPS, you're missing the forest for the trees.

I am looking at the total player. CFs, by and large, can play the field. Yet they also average better than a .760 OPS in the NL. So that's a pack of players, most of whom field, run and hit. And you're trying to figure whether Stubbs can do just enough to slide by. Not for nothing, that's the mentality that's gotten the Reds into this nine-year bind.

M2
09-01-2009, 05:24 PM
To be fair Drew Stubbs has shown himself, through his career, to be very streaky. He was at the bottom of a pitifully bad streak when he was called up. I think it is fair to say he is out of his bad streak, now. Doug has posted his month by month numbers before. It leads some people to make fun of doug, but it provides a salient point. He is as streaky as they come. The good thing is that he can draw a walk, play outstanding defense, and run the bases like a gazelle. You can bet the house that if the Reds were in contention that Drew Stubbs would have been on the playoff roster as a late inning replacement/pinch runner type. Those things are still valuable when he is slumping. The good news is that when he is cold you can put Dickerson in to give him a rest/lesson the extent his slumps hurt the lineup.

He's got more than 1,800 plate appearances in the minors and he's shown a downward trend from low A through AAA (with the outlier being a small sample size flourish in AA). The streaks even out after a while. He profiles as a guy that you can't count on to best a .700 OPS in the majors.

I've got no problem using him as a role player like you mentioned. It's the same role that Ruben Rivera and Reggie Taylor filled once upon a time and I had no problem with them either. Then again, no one tried to use them as everyday players.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 05:30 PM
I am looking at the total player. CFs, by and large, can play the field. Yet they also average better than a .760 OPS in the NL. So that's a pack of players, most of whom field, run and hit. And you're trying to figure whether Stubbs can do just enough to slide by. Not for nothing, that's the mentality that's gotten the Reds into this nine-year bind.

Well lets assume that Stubbs is a +20 run guy in the field (which isn't a stretch at all). In 2009 the average CF has a .336/.418 line, over 600 PA is worth roughly 84 runs. So Stubbs offense, in order to be league average overall needs to be worth about 65 runs over 600 PA. That is not much at all really, about a .670 OPS.

TRF
09-01-2009, 05:50 PM
Well lets assume that Stubbs is a +20 run guy (which isn't a stretch at all). In 2009 the average CF has a .336/.418 line, over 600 PA is worth roughly 84 runs. So Stubbs offense, in order to be league average overall needs to be worth about 65 runs over 600 PA. That is not much at all really, about a .670 OPS.

On what planet do you think Stubbs can post a .416 SLG after extended exposure to a league's pitching?

He didn't do it at low A or AA and he wasn't doing it at AAA.

You are expecting a 60 point jump in his SLG from this year's AAA

outside of outliers, who does that?

Bumstead
09-01-2009, 05:52 PM
My post from the Janish thread which applies more to this thread:

My only thought on Stubbs, is that I think it is too early to pigeon-hole him as he can only be a certain type of player. Obviously, he hasn't developed as fast as some players do and maybe he will never develop into a full-time player. However, he is a better prospect than Reggie Taylor ever was and with the Reds other option being Willy T, some patience can be afforded Stubbs to see what he can do. He may surprise a lot of people down the line. Ever see Hanley Ramirez' minor league stats? 1536 AB's, 27 HR's, 99 Steals, .783 OPS. Stubbs stats: 1588 AB's, 28 HR's, 121 Steals, .765 OPS...He can still develop into a solid everyday CF for the Reds. He has the tools to develop, it's just whether he can put it all together or not. Nobody has any idea how he will turn out as a MLB player; the Reds aren't contenders, so why not just let it play out. He has earned that much anyway.

Bum

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 05:55 PM
On what planet do you think Stubbs can post a .416 SLG after extended exposure to a league's pitching?

He didn't do it at low A or AA and he wasn't doing it at AAA.

You are expecting a 60 point jump in his SLG from this year's AAA

outside of outliers, who does that?

Did you read anything I posted?

TheNext44
09-01-2009, 05:56 PM
Well lets assume that Stubbs is a +20 run guy (which isn't a stretch at all). In 2009 the average CF has a .336/.418 line, over 600 PA is worth roughly 84 runs. So Stubbs offense, in order to be league average overall needs to be worth about 65 runs over 600 PA. That is not much at all really, about a .670 OPS.

I was just about to make that point. Fangraphs did a nice story awhile ago, that Nyjer Morgan was almost as productive as Dunn, when you factor in their defense. We are starting to learn that elite defense really can justify a mediocre bat.

One more point, is that we need to factor in his speed. It's hard to say how effective of a basestealer Stubbs will be, but if he can steal 30 bases at a 75% rate, that would bump up his run production a good deal. I am not an expert on these things, but I believe that should raise his production equivalent of around .010 to .015 points of OPS.

Simply using OPS to evaluate Stubb's production hides his most important skills.

HokieRed
09-01-2009, 05:56 PM
I am looking at the total player. CFs, by and large, can play the field. Yet they also average better than a .760 OPS in the NL. So that's a pack of players, most of whom field, run and hit. And you're trying to figure whether Stubbs can do just enough to slide by. Not for nothing, that's the mentality that's gotten the Reds into this nine-year bind.

This I agree with entirely. We should never be satisfied just with average at the position. We need this from Stubbs but if that's what he can do, we also need to keep looking.

jojo
09-01-2009, 06:01 PM
In my book Dickerson has plus range, and Stubbs has plus plus range. Both are good.

Do we have any decent metrics on Stubbs yet?

No. We don't even have decent metrics on Dickerson but I'm comfortable with the notion that Dickerson will grade out as a plus defender in center given the eyes plus the small sample of data. Nothing meaningful can be said of Stubbs' defense using UZR or +/- at this point.

osuceltic
09-01-2009, 06:02 PM
I am looking at the total player. CFs, by and large, can play the field. Yet they also average better than a .760 OPS in the NL. So that's a pack of players, most of whom field, run and hit. And you're trying to figure whether Stubbs can do just enough to slide by. Not for nothing, that's the mentality that's gotten the Reds into this nine-year bind.

You're just lumping them all together, saying they can hit, run and field. But there's a pretty wide range of how well those guy do those different things. I'm saying Stubbs has a chance to be one of the very best in the league in the field and potentially on the basepaths. If he is, then he still can provide positive overall impact even if his OPS isn't league average for the position.

Personally, I think you know this, but you've dug your heels in on Stubbs to the point you can't discuss him rationally.

And -- again -- this is coming from a guy who is in no way convinced Stubbs will hit well enough even under the conditions I established earlier.

TRF
09-01-2009, 06:02 PM
Did you read anything I posted?

oh i read it. I just don't believe he can be valuable as either a .670 OPS guy (likely) or that he has a snowball's chance of posting a .400+ SLG

He's a glove. maybe a great one, but he offers nothing at the plate. He hits like Vince Coleman, minus the larger parks which makes it worse.

And here is the thing that sticks with me. His game is all speed. He's what 24? 25? He's going to start adding some pounds soon. Time does that, and he has a pretty big frame to add to. He may be lanky now, but time has a way of slowing those types down in a hurry. He may not be suited for CF fo very long and he can't hit like a corner OF. I'm not saying he will fill out that way, just that he could. I've only seen him a handful of times so take that with a grain of salt.

jojo
09-01-2009, 06:04 PM
Well lets assume that Stubbs is a +20 run guy (which isn't a stretch at all). In 2009 the average CF has a .336/.418 line, over 600 PA is worth roughly 84 runs. So Stubbs offense, in order to be league average overall needs to be worth about 65 runs over 600 PA. That is not much at all really, about a .670 OPS.

A +20 run defender?

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 06:06 PM
A +20 run defender?

Ah yeah... thats what I meant. Perhaps that is where the confusion came from.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 06:08 PM
oh i read it. I just don't believe he can be valuable as either a .670 OPS guy (likely) or that he has a snowball's chance of posting a .400+ SLG
Why don't you believe he can be average if he can OPS .670 and be one of the best DEFENSIVE center fielders in baseball? Because it doesn't fit what you want to believe? I showed you the math on it. Where was I wrong?

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 06:11 PM
One thing that may be holding Stubbs back, and its something I was critical of when he was in AAA too... he looks at hittable pitches too often. Whether its because he wants to work the count and get deep or for another reason, I think its held back his bat. Here are the called strikes against him so far this year via Pitch F/X.

http://redsminorleagues.com/images/stubbscalledks.gif

There are just too many pitches in the middle of the plate that he hasn't swung at.

osuceltic
09-01-2009, 06:11 PM
I was just about to make that point. Fangraphs did a nice story awhile ago, that Nyjer Morgan was almost as productive as Dunn, when you factor in their defense. We are starting to learn that elite defense really can justify a mediocre bat.

One more point, is that we need to factor in his speed. It's hard to say how effective of a basestealer Stubbs will be, but if he can steal 30 bases at a 75% rate, that would bump up his run production a good deal. I am not an expert on these things, but I believe that should raise his production equivalent of around .010 to .015 points of OPS.

Simply using OPS to evaluate Stubb's production hides his most important skills.

Yep, look at this (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=y&type=6&season=2009&month=0).

I'd say defensive impact is tremendously underrated around here. Elite defenders and lousy defenders can skew a player's value far more than most concede. Check out Adam Dunn's ranking on that list. And Nyjer Morgan's.

There's no perfect metric, but this one passes my smell test.

nate
09-01-2009, 06:13 PM
Why don't you believe he can be average if he can OPS .670 and be one of the best center fielders in baseball? Because it doesn't fit what you want to believe? I showed you the math on it. Where was I wrong?

I think to be the best CF in baseball while OPS .670, he'll have to eliminate the need for a LF and RF!

:cool:

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 06:15 PM
I think to be the best CF in baseball while OPS .670, he'll have to eliminate the need for a LF and RF!

:cool:
I have been forgetting words all day. How about .670 OPS and best defensive centerfielders in baseball?

jojo
09-01-2009, 06:18 PM
Ah yeah... thats what I meant. Perhaps that is where the confusion came from.

A +20 defender in center would essentially make him one of the top 3 defenders in the majors (and I mean across all positions). That's a huge amount of defensive value. Personally I think that is a huge assumption to make.

jojo
09-01-2009, 06:21 PM
I'm obviously a bit biased but Stubbs will have to show me ALOT before I'm ready to say he's a better defender than Franklin Gutierrez.

nate
09-01-2009, 06:21 PM
I have been forgetting words all day. How about .670 OPS and best defensive centerfielders in baseball?

No, I'm with you and inserted "defensive" into my mind while typing the response. My semi-humorous/serious comment remains in that I think to validate his presence in the lineup with that weak (although a vast improvement over what has been there) bat, he'd have to have Superman-like range.

EDIT: to actually insert "defensive" into my post...lol.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 06:34 PM
I'm obviously a bit biased but Stubbs will have to show me ALOT before I'm ready to say he's a better defender than Franklin Gutierrez.

Watch him some more. The kid is a legit Top 3 center fielder in baseball, right now.

jojo
09-01-2009, 06:42 PM
Watch him some more. The kid is a legit Top 3 center fielder in baseball, right now.

If that is the case than he should've been in centerfield on opening day. Color me in the group that will need to have him prove it. I think Stubbs conversation can get a little wild sometimes.

M2
09-01-2009, 06:43 PM
You're just lumping them all together, saying they can hit, run and field. But there's a pretty wide range of how well those guy do those different things.

That's the position they play. Victorino, Fowler, Rowand, Cameron, Beltran, Young, Morgan, Rasmus, McCutchen, Fukudome, Kemp (no specific order there and that's just in the NL) - all would make a team happy in CF. The defensive stats may shimmy one way or another in a given season, but there's no shortage of guys who bring a quality glove to CF. It's the guys who can go get it best who play CF. Always has been the case, always will be. Stiffs don't play out there (mid-2000s Reds being a notable exception) and we're years (possibly decades) away from truly understanding the range out there. Common sense ought to tell you that the variation among the fastest, most athletic guys in the game isn't terribly large.

Morgan's got crazy range for sure and he's a .300 hitter, which keeps his OB respectable. Stubbs ain't a .300 hitter.

Anyway, the main problem with the Reds is they don't score and a minus bat isn't going to fix the situation. Given that, all the theory in the world on whether Stubbs is the defensive golden child is pretty much a dead end.

_Sir_Charles_
09-01-2009, 06:45 PM
CF, SS and C are different animals. Those players impact everyone else on the field. They can hide deficiencies elsewhere or expose deficiencies elsewhere. I'm not saying you can afford three offensive black holes, but if you start sacrificing defense and baserunning while chasing a few points of OPS, you're missing the forest for the trees.

Osuceltic phrased what I'd been trying to say most all day. Wish I'd put it this way.

Spot on.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 06:52 PM
Anyway, the main problem with the Reds is they don't score and a minus bat isn't going to fix the situation. Given that, all the theory in the world on whether Stubbs is the defensive golden child is pretty much a dead end.

Runs saved are just as valuable, if not more than runs scored. You continue to pretend that runs scored are worth more than runs saved and its simply untrue. Teams win by scoring more than they allow. Taking a step back defensively is just like taking one back offensively. A guy who is worth 10 runs more with his glove and 10 runs less with his bat is worth the same as the guy worth 10 runs less with his glove and 10 runs more with his bat. The fact that the Reds offense sucks doesn't change ones overall value. The guy either is worth X amount of runs combined or he isn't. The 80 run bat and 0 run glove isn't worth any more or any less than the 60 run bat and the 20 run glove.

nate
09-01-2009, 06:59 PM
Osuceltic phrased what I'd been trying to say most all day. Wish I'd put it this way.

Spot on.

If a team continues sacrificing a hundred points of OPS for a step of defense on an already crippled offensive team, you're missing the playoffs for the umpteenth time.

Brutus
09-01-2009, 07:24 PM
Runs saved are just as valuable, if not more than runs scored. You continue to pretend that runs scored are worth more than runs saved and its simply untrue. Teams win by scoring more than they allow. Taking a step back defensively is just like taking one back offensively. A guy who is worth 10 runs more with his glove and 10 runs less with his bat is worth the same as the guy worth 10 runs less with his glove and 10 runs more with his bat. The fact that the Reds offense sucks doesn't change ones overall value. The guy either is worth X amount of runs combined or he isn't. The 80 run bat and 0 run glove isn't worth any more or any less than the 60 run bat and the 20 run glove.

Actually, if the pythagorean is to be believed (and I don't find many people that dispute it), 10 runs saved are more important than 10 runs scored. So I agree completely with your point, but you may have actually under represented your argument.

I'm not ready to pass off Stubbs as the savior in center, but he's shown a lot of flashes. Trying to compare him to Franklin Gutierrez would be tough, as Gutierrez is simply amazing out there. But he's easily a top 3-5 defensive player from what I've seen thus far. His arm is a 7 on the 8-scale and his instincts and range are incredible. I see a lot of potential for him offensively, but whether he lives up to it or not remains to be seen.

_Sir_Charles_
09-01-2009, 07:48 PM
If a team continues sacrificing a hundred points of OPS for a step of defense on an already crippled offensive team, you're missing the playoffs for the umpteenth time.

You're the only one who said a "hundred" points of OPS. Osuceltic said a "few".

And people seem to overlook a rather glaring fact, this offensively crippled team can also just be characterized as crippled. Injuries have played a pretty hefty role in the output of the offense. As has the prolonged slumps of Bruce, EE, Gonzo, Taveras, etc. These guys were having career worst seasons. Do people seriously think these guys will repeat their numbers of '09?

RedEye
09-01-2009, 07:53 PM
i think it is clear that the reds need more offense overall, but they also just need good players. stubbs seems to be good player right now when you factor his whole game into the discussion, so i think it is clear he is part of the solution--even if we don't know just how big a part quite yet. at least the team has a few cheap years of service time to figure that out.

westofyou
09-01-2009, 07:57 PM
The Reds are on pace to score FIFTY runs less than they did in 1968, THE worst hitting year in the history of the game, I don't care how many runs they can save in the OF, they are putrid with the bat and no amount of runs saved in the outfield will add to the 640 runs that they are on pace to score.

Acting like 10 runs saved on defense is going to win the WS is a pipe dream until the Reds can actually score some runs. Until then this debate is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 08:01 PM
The Reds are on pace to score FIFTY runs less than they did in 1968, THE worst hitting year in the history of the game, I don't care how many runs they can save in the OF, they are putrid with the bat and no amount of runs saved in the outfield will add to the 640 runs that they are on pace to score.

Acting like 10 runs saved on defense is going to win the WS is a pipe dream until the Reds can actually score some runs. Until then this debate is nothing more than an exercise in futility.

Well at this point NO ONE in the history of the game in CF is going to be enough to take the Reds to the WS, so that argument doesn't really matter. This year is shot and I don't think anyone in the discussion is even talking about this year. The questions are more about next year and with the deletion of Taveras (hopefully)/Gonzalez/the crap we have had at 3B this year, there is no reason at all to believe that our offense will be as bad in 2010 as it was in 2009. At the end of the day its about being on the positive side of the ledger in runs scored/runs allowed. Being down on a player because the rest of the offense has sucked is a poor way to determine ones value to the teams +/- runs. Players values are made up of different skillsets. What matters is what the skillset produces overall.

RedsManRick
09-01-2009, 08:09 PM
I don't think it's fair to assume he's +20 in CF, but I've heard from numerous sources that he was among the, if not the, best defensive CF in the minors. Given that defense peaks early (most studies I've seen suggest it peaks around age 24-25), I think it's absolutely plausible that Stubbs is a top 3-5 defender in baseball right now.

As for baserunning value, the best baserunners in the game tend to add about 10 runs. Usually there's no more than a small handful of guys north of 5 runs. You're talking the very elite in that range, the high frequency/high success guys -- Taveras, Crawford, Pierre.

I think even if we talk in gross generalizations, the point is that a CF who plays excellent defense and baserunning can put up a .650 OPS and still be a net positive contributor. If he puts up a .700 OPS you're looking at a league average value type. And it goes up from there. I mean, people were making this case for Taveras maybe being a useful player. Of course, the problem with Taveras was that he had a big downside to his offensive game and came with a price tag that assumed he would hit.

The Fangraphs link posted earlier really shows this well. The tier 1 players are guys who play great defense (overall defensive value -- position matters a lot) and are great hitters: Utley, Mauer, Longoria. The next tier is full of guys who are elite on end and mediocre on the other: Gutierrez, Crawford, Morgan on the defense first side and Cabrera, Fielder, Holliday on the offense first side.

I think a reasonable expectation for Stubbs is something like the Rangers have seen from Elvis Andrus this year. Right around replacement level bat (say .250/.325/.375) and then a nice chunk of value from defense and baserunning. So you're looking at something like a 1.5 win player for pennies. Stubbs is basically the exact same case you might make for Taveras, expect he's essentially free, a better defender, and has much more offensive upside.

As for our overall RS vs RA balance, consider that Taveras has been something like 10-15 runs BELOW REPLACEMENT at the plate this year. You're talking about something like a 20 run scored improvement if Stubbs can just OPS .700. Dickerson is at .750. So yeah, we're never going to prevent enough runs to score 650 runs and make the playoffs, but replacing Taveras with Stubbs should improve us on both sides of the equation.

nate
09-01-2009, 08:09 PM
You're the only one who said a "hundred" points of OPS. Osuceltic said a "few".

Yes, because I'm turning it around. The team's worst problem is scoring runs. The team's least worst problem this year is defense.

The offense needs to be fixed. Unless you have an Albert Pujols, you cannot win with three sub .700 OPS in the lineup let alone two sub .600 OPS like the Reds threw out there.


And people seem to overlook a rather glaring fact, this offensively crippled team can also just be characterized as crippled. Injuries have played a pretty hefty role in the output of the offense. I know. The offense got better because the starters were so atrocious; they were outplayed by their replacements: Dickerson, Hairston, Rosales, Hannigan, Nix, Gomes and even Janish have outplayed Taveras, Gonzales, EE, Hernandez and McDonald. Votto is the only offensive injury that "hurt."

But that's not a playoff team, sorry.

I'm all for Janish being SS if they can find a real hitter to play LF. I'm all for seeing Stubbs play CF for the rest of the year and platooning him with Dickerson next year. I'm all for Hannigan being on the team as the second catcher. But going into next year with the same plan and hoping the result is better seems like a bad plan.


As has the prolonged slumps of Bruce, EE, Gonzo, Taveras, etc. These guys were having career worst seasons. Do people seriously think these guys will repeat their numbers of '09?Bruce: no

EE: I don't care, he doesn't play here

Gonzo: I don't care, he doesn't play here

Taveras: I don't care to find out

westofyou
09-01-2009, 08:10 PM
Well at this point NO ONE in the history of the game in CF is going to be enough to take the Reds to the WS, so that argument doesn't really matter. This year is shot and I don't think anyone in the discussion is even talking about this year. The questions are more about next year and with the deletion of Taveras (hopefully)/Gonzalez/the crap we have had at 3B this year, there is no reason at all to believe that our offense will be as bad in 2010 as it was in 2009. At the end of the day its about being on the positive side of the ledger in runs scored/runs allowed. Being down on a player because the rest of the offense has sucked is a poor way to determine ones value to the teams +/- runs. Players values are made up of different skillsets. What matters is what the skillset produces overall.

Plus 20 runs defense is not going to make up for a .670 OPS in the GAB, if it was an old school park like Redland or Braves field then that would factor in, but this park has small gaps and having Richie Asburn would still be a stretch with the proposed supporting cast for next year.

No one hates defense, no one hates a good glove... but the game is best served by guys who can do both and as much as he catches in this bandbox will always be measured against how much he hits there too.

dougdirt
09-01-2009, 08:12 PM
Plus 20 runs defense is not going to make up for a .670 OPS in the GAB, if it was an old school park like Redland or Braves field then that would factor in, but this park has small gaps and having Richie Asburn would still be a stretch with the proposed supporting cast for next year.

No one hates defense, no one hates a good glove... but the game is best served by guys who can do both and as much as he catches in this bandbox will always be measured how much he hits there too.

.670 or .690, I think the point still stands. He doesn't have to hit league average for his position to be a positive player for the Reds.

Brutus
09-01-2009, 08:15 PM
Yes, because I'm turning it around. The team's worst problem is scoring runs. The team's least worst problem this year is defense.

The offense needs to be fixed. Unless you have an Albert Pujols, you cannot win with three sub .700 OPS in the lineup let alone two sub .600 OPS like the Reds threw out there.

I know. The offense got better because the starters were so atrocious; they were outplayed by their replacements: Dickerson, Hairston, Rosales, Hannigan, Nix, Gomes and even Janish have outplayed Taveras, Gonzales, EE, Hernandez and McDonald. Votto is the only offensive injury that "hurt."

But that's not a playoff team, sorry.

I'm all for Janish being SS if they can find a real hitter to play LF. I'm all for seeing Stubbs play CF for the rest of the year and platooning him with Dickerson next year. I'm all for Hannigan being on the team as the second catcher. But going into next year with the same plan and hoping the result is better seems like a bad plan.

Bruce: no

EE: I don't care, he doesn't play here

Gonzo: I don't care, he doesn't play here

Taveras: I don't care to find out

Until/unless the Reds do find a 'real' hitter in left, the guy that is the odds-on favorite for it at the moment continues to OPS over 900. Yet, despite the horrific offense that we're discussing, everyone wants to relegate that 900 OPS to the bench. Even if he regresses to an 850 hitter, we should be happy to have that as an option if the Reds can't reel in the big one in the offseason.

nate
09-01-2009, 08:20 PM
Until/unless the Reds do find a 'real' hitter in left, the guy that is the odds-on favorite for it at the moment continues to OPS over 900. Yet, despite the horrific offense that we're discussing, everyone wants to relegate that 900 OPS to the bench. Even if he regresses to an 850 hitter, we should be happy to have that as an option if the Reds can't reel in the big one in the offseason.

And that'll be great...

...for 300 odd ABs.

Who's going to give us the other 300?

Brutus
09-01-2009, 08:23 PM
And that'll be great...

...for 300 odd ABs.

Who's going to give us the other 300?

Where's this idea coming from that he is not capable of playing everyday? He's twice (in four years) been over 400 plate appearances. And one of the years he didn't, the Rays had rotating at-bats among 3-4 players for two spots.

Yes, he's had some injuries, but I'm not seeing any reason to think he's incapable of handling 500 PA's.

jojo
09-01-2009, 08:26 PM
.670 or .690, I think the point still stands. He doesn't have to hit league average for his position to be a positive player for the Reds.

If Stubbs were a +20 defender in center he could essentially be a replacement level bat (wOBA= .280-.290ish) and overall he'd still be a league average player (2.25 WAR). As a point of comparison, that would be roughly the value of EE in his best year as a Red (2008) or the average value of Arroyo in 2007 or 2008.

That's a useful player.

But again, that's contingent upon him being an uber elite defender.

nate
09-01-2009, 08:42 PM
Where's this idea coming from that he is not capable of playing everyday? He's twice (in four years) been over 400 plate appearances. And one of the years he didn't, the Rays had rotating at-bats among 3-4 players for two spots.

Yes, he's had some injuries, but I'm not seeing any reason to think he's incapable of handling 500 PA's.

Why should I expect him to be a .900 OPS bat in 600 PAs if he's not done it consistently, let alone ever? Injuries and performance have historically kept him out of the lineup, what indication is there that's over?

He's had a nice couple hundred ABs this year but I don't think the Reds should cement his name in the lineup just yet.

Again, I say get players good enough that make a player like Jonny Gomes the first option off the bench.

Brutus
09-01-2009, 08:49 PM
Why should I expect him to be a .900 OPS bat in 600 PAs if he's not done it consistently, let alone ever? Injuries and performance have historically kept him out of the lineup, what indication is there that's over?

He's had a nice couple hundred ABs this year but I don't think the Reds should cement his name in the lineup just yet.

Again, I say get players good enough that make a player like Jonny Gomes the first option off the bench.

Thing is, no one is able to name a realistic option the Reds could get that will produce at the level Gomes has been producing at. If someone like Matt Holliday drops into the Reds laps, or Santa brings an early Christmas present like Bob Abreu, Jermaine Dye or whatever, fine. But right now, there's simply no one out there that the Reds are likely to have a chance with even if they are willing to spend some money.

Maybe I'm out of my mind, but it seems to me people take regression to the norm to the extreme that players are incapable of improvement. It's not like we're talking about a 33-year old (as was the case of Hairston) with a static, predicable baseline. We're talking about a guy who has just reached an age where historically improvement is not only possible, but many times expected and though has been inconsistent, and at times injured, shown some flashes of this previously. That he has not hit like this before at a consistent level, in my mind, is much a product of the fact he's at his 'peak' age and he's healthy again.

I don't suspect, unless he cuts down on strikeouts, that hes' going to maintain a 900 OPS as a starter (or someone getting 450-500 PA's). But his power and run-producing is no fluke. An 850 OPS is probably not unrealistic if he's given the chance to man left next year.

jojo
09-01-2009, 09:42 PM
Thing is, no one is able to name a realistic option the Reds could get that will produce at the level Gomes has been producing at. If someone like Matt Holliday drops into the Reds laps, or Santa brings an early Christmas present like Bob Abreu, Jermaine Dye or whatever, fine. But right now, there's simply no one out there that the Reds are likely to have a chance with even if they are willing to spend some money.

Maybe I'm out of my mind, but it seems to me people take regression to the norm to the extreme that players are incapable of improvement. It's not like we're talking about a 33-year old (as was the case of Hairston) with a static, predicable baseline. We're talking about a guy who has just reached an age where historically improvement is not only possible, but many times expected and though has been inconsistent, and at times injured, shown some flashes of this previously. That he has not hit like this before at a consistent level, in my mind, is much a product of the fact he's at his 'peak' age and he's healthy again.

I don't suspect, unless he cuts down on strikeouts, that hes' going to maintain a 900 OPS as a starter (or someone getting 450-500 PA's). But his power and run-producing is no fluke. An 850 OPS is probably not unrealistic if he's given the chance to man left next year.

Gomes is a treadmill player-his bat taketh but his glove giveth it back.

He simply won't hit enough to be much of an impact player as a Red.

nate
09-01-2009, 10:10 PM
Thing is, no one is able to name a realistic option the Reds could get that will produce at the level Gomes has been producing at. If someone like Matt Holliday drops into the Reds laps, or Santa brings an early Christmas present like Bob Abreu, Jermaine Dye or whatever, fine. But right now, there's simply no one out there that the Reds are likely to have a chance with even if they are willing to spend some money.

I don't care if anyone can come up with a name. I care if the Reds can come up with a player.


Maybe I'm out of my mind, but it seems to me people take regression to the norm to the extreme that players are incapable of improvement. It's not like we're talking about a 33-year old (as was the case of Hairston) with a static, predicable baseline. We're talking about a guy who has just reached an age where historically improvement is not only possible, but many times expected and though has been inconsistent, and at times injured, shown some flashes of this previously. That he has not hit like this before at a consistent level, in my mind, is much a product of the fact he's at his 'peak' age and he's healthy again.

I don't suspect, unless he cuts down on strikeouts, that hes' going to maintain a 900 OPS as a starter (or someone getting 450-500 PA's). But his power and run-producing is no fluke. An 850 OPS is probably not unrealistic if he's given the chance to man left next year.My mileage varies.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2009, 10:24 PM
The other problem with Stubbs is that he was drafted a few picks before a certain frontline starter. That may happen to cloud some folks perceptions of him both from a positive and negative view point.

You're absolutely right.

Tim Lincecum's accomplished more in his short career than Drew Stubbs will accomplish during his entire career.

Drew Stubbs is what he is, and unfortunately it won't amount to much. He was a wasted 1st Round Draft pick, plain and simple. He'll never hit enough to live up to where he was drafted, and his D will only serve as smoke and mirrors. Exceptional D to go with no stick.