Lincecum opens up eyes at Giants camp

[Patrick Bateman]

But he projects to be a better hitter right? but he didn't out hit Dorn though they had about exactly the same amount of experience?

Just because can Dorn outhit Stubbs at this point has little to do with future projections. Stubbs was supposed to be a raw college player when he came out, so it shouldn't be a shock that he's behind many of his teammates right now.

Stubbs is going to be a guy that will move along quite slowly (which is one of the reasons that I would have rather have seen Lincecum drafted), but he also has the talent to improve much more than some of the more polished guys right now. Many of the guys you listed that currently outhit Stubbs, don't have half the talent that he possesses. He's likely to improve at a faster rate than his peers, as he is quite raw and has the talent to play at a top level in the big leagues.

Like a few others, I did not want to see Stubbs drafted by the Reds at that position. However, I still saw Stubbs as a solid prospect that does have a chance to be something special, even if it's going to take a long time for it to happen. I rarely have a huge problem drafting guys who have top end talent while the ability to play a skill position at a high level. Stubbs has a long way to go, but the fact that he has struggled to date in his first season of pro ball is a poor indicator to use to judge the rate and potential of his improvement.

[TRF]

Well no crap. Stubbs comes from possibly the weakest draft class ever (2000 was equally as bad probably). There was no slam dunk last year. I dont see the point you are trying to make.

I think comparatively speaking, weak class or not, Linecum was a slam dunk compared to Stubbs, especially in a pitching thin organization like the Reds.

That was my point.

Just because can Dorn outhit Stubbs at this point has little to do with future projections. Stubbs was supposed to be a raw college player when he came out, so it shouldn't be a shock that he's behind many of his teammates right now.

Stubbs is going to be a guy that will move along quite slowly (which is one of the reasons that I would have rather have seen Lincecum drafted), but he also has the talent to improve much more than some of the more polished guys right now. Many of the guys you listed that currently outhit Stubbs, don't have half the talent that he possesses. He's likely to improve at a faster rate than his peers, as he is quite raw and has the talent to play at a top level in the big leagues.

Like a few others, I did not want to see Stubbs drafted by the Reds at that position. However, I still saw Stubbs as a solid prospect that does have a chance to be something special, even if it's going to take a long time for it to happen. I rarely have a huge problem drafting guys who have top end talent while the ability to play a skill position at a high level. Stubbs has a long way to go, but the fact that he has struggled to date in his first season of pro ball is a poor indicator to use to judge the rate and potential of his improvement.

I'm asking this because I really want an answer. Why is Stubbs considered a raw college prospect, and the others are not? Why does Stubbs have the projections of being a power hitter and the others either do not have said projections, or we never hear about them because of their position in the draft? Why is it we are not looking at the results of the 2006 season when it comes to those projections, and more importantly, why aren't those projections revised somewhat because of those results?

[dougdirt]

Yeah, right now I see Stubbs as somewhat of a bust, and I see Linecum getting a look at the rotation or at least a bullpen spot with the Giants in '07. I think that is rushing him, but he's on the cusp of making his major league debut. I doubt we see Stubbs in a MLB uniform before 2009 if at all.

You can feel free to view someone as a bust after 202 at bats.... its your opinion. I just think it is a VERY bad one. I mean Adam Dunn had this line over his last 184 at bats of 2006, .184/.299/.348 for a whopping OPS of .647. Does that mean it says a darn thing about his future or that he just had a poor third of a season?

As for Lincecum..... listed at 5'11, 160 pounds....he is probably about 5'9 or 5'10 and 150-155. I dont know about you, but there are maybe a handful of pitchers who have been that small who were able to succeed in the pros. Even guys like Pedro weigh in at 180 (although probably slightly less). If in 2009 Stubbs is on the cusp of the majors and Lincecum is on the DL with another arm injury, what will be said then?

[dougdirt]

I think comparatively speaking, weak class or not, Linecum was a slam dunk compared to Stubbs, especially in a pitching thin organization like the Reds.

That was my point.

Yet the Reds have more highly regarded pitchers than hitters in the system. Votto, Bruce and then who? Those are the hitters the Reds have in their system. Bailey, Wood, Cueto are all good prospects, and there are several others who have good prospects with them still (Fisher, Lecure, Ravin, Watson etc).

[Patrick Bateman]

I'm asking this because I really want an answer. Why is Stubbs considered a raw college prospect, and the others are not? Why does Stubbs have the projections of being a power hitter and the others either do not have said projections, or we never hear about them because of their position in the draft? Why is it we are not looking at the results of the 2006 season when it comes to those projections, and more importantly, why aren't those projections revised somewhat because of those results?

Scouting. The same type of prospect reports that we use to find make our judgements about these prospects. The same reports that told all of us that Lincecum had nasty stuff. I doubt you have seen Lincecum play very often, so I'm guessing you get most of your information about the guy from what you read about him rather than your own scouting.

Outside of a few exceptions, none of us have seen these players play, so like me, I'm guessing just about everyone here relies on prospect reports from places like baseball america.

Projections cannot simply be seen from statistics. There is a lot that can be seen by just watching the players, and that is a better way of determining upside than a couple hundred at-bats in rookie ball. Everything I have read on Stubbs basically writes the same strory:

• Great Fielder
• Decent patience
• Good power potential
• Poor contact skills
• Top end speed
• Very raw

It's clear to everyone that Stubbs is a long ways away from contributing in the majors. It's the potential we all disagree on. Now I'm not going to proclaim myself an expert in regards to Stubbs (or any Reds prospect for that matter) as I haven't seen any of them play. However, I do understand that players develop at different rates, and for the most part scouting reports give a better indication of determining a player's upside than a player's first jump into rookie ball. Potential can be easily scouted. Looking at a player's build, athleticism can lead to the conclusion that things like power and contact can be developed even if those skills have not been translated onto the baseball field yet.

[lollipopcurve]

Why is it we are not looking at the results of the 2006 season when it comes to those projections, and more importantly, why aren't those projections revised somewhat because of those results?

I think because Stubbs performed pretty much according to what the scouting reports said. Keep in mind that he had the concussion and also battled turf toe for a significant part of the season.

[Triples]

Scouting. The same type of prospect reports that we use to find make our judgements about these prospects. The same reports that told all of us that Lincecum had nasty stuff. I doubt you have seen Lincecum play very often, so I'm guessing you get most of your information about the guy from what you read about him rather than your own scouting.

Outside of a few exceptions, none of us have seen these players play, so like me, I'm guessing just about everyone here relies on prospect reports from places like baseball america.

Projections cannot simply be seen from statistics. There is a lot that can be seen by just watching the players, and that is a better way of determining upside than a couple hundred at-bats in rookie ball. Everything I have read on Stubbs basically writes the same strory:

• Great Fielder
• Decent patience
• Good power potential
• Poor contact skills
• Top end speed
• Very raw

It's clear to everyone that Stubbs is a long ways away from contributing in the majors. It's the potential we all disagree on. Now I'm not going to proclaim myself an expert in regards to Stubbs (or any Reds prospect for that matter) as I haven't seen any of them play. However, I do understand that players develop at different rates, and for the most part scouting reports give a better indication of determining a player's upside than a player's first jump into rookie ball. Potential can be easily scouted. Looking at a player's build, athleticism can lead to the conclusion that things like power and contact can be developed even if those skills have not been translated onto the baseball field yet.

Seems like we hearing the same things about BJ Symanski that we're hearing about Drew Stubbs. I sure hope the Reds get more for the $2.3 mil investment in Stubbs.

[TRF]

It's easier to find good hitting than good pitching. You never have enough good pitching. Some of the Reds pitching prospects are highly regarded. Ok a few of them are. Ok 3. In order, Bailey, Cueto and Wood. the rest... not so much.

2 of those guys were at Dayton when Stubbs was drafted. That doesn't scream top prospect status to me. It's really no different than jumping on the Pauly/Gardner bandwagon a few years ago. Guys at High A are suspects, not prospects. In other words, I want to see it again, but at a higher level.

As I type this, understand that I am a huge Cueto and LeCure fan. I think both have big futures. but those futures are a couple of years away. 2009 at least likely for both players.

Linecum was an advanced college pitcher. Is he a typical player? Nope not even remotely. That doesn't mean he will fall apart on the mound.

Stubbs, from what I am reading, is built for baseball. doesn't mean he can hit a lick either.

And please don't compare him to Dunn. Adam Dunn has a track record in the major leagues. His service time is what seperates him from guys like Stubbs and even Bruce. Now can Adam learn from last year's collapse? I hop he can, but we are talking about a guy that if he stays healthy his entire career will hit over 600 HR's.

Drew Stubbs needs to hit one in the bigs before we start comparing him to Adam Dunn.

[lollipopcurve]

And please don't compare him to Dunn. Adam Dunn has a track record in the major leagues. His service time is what seperates him from guys like Stubbs and even Bruce. Now can Adam learn from last year's collapse? I hop he can, but we are talking about a guy that if he stays healthy his entire career will hit over 600 HR's.

Drew Stubbs needs to hit one in the bigs before we start comparing him to Adam Dunn.

The comparison to Dunn is not a "who's better" comparison. It's a comparison that says "these players both have good power - but don't hit a lot of doubles -- and they walk and strike out a lot." Mike Cameron, a common best-case comp for Stubbs since he is a good defensive player, too, shares these offensive traits to an extent. The purpose of the comparison is to show that Stubbs' offensive profile can be seen in above-average players at the major league level.

[TRF]

Adam Dunn had a poor 2006. well he had a poor August and September of 2006. but he's a year removed from a season in which he had 77 XBH's, and 2 years removed from an 80 XBH season.

So are we saying Stubbs compares well to a guy that has done that? That he compares well to a guy that was destroying the Midwest league at age 20, and at age 21, the same age Stubbs is now, hit 51 HR's at three levels including 19 with the Reds. He also had a combined 40 doubles that year too.

Adam Dunn will give the Reds somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 doubles. sometimes more, sometimes less. He'll give the Reds 40+ HR's.

Are you saying Drew Stubbs projects to be that kind of player?

cuz I'm not seeing that. at least not yet.

[dougdirt]

It's easier to find good hitting than good pitching. You never have enough good pitching. Some of the Reds pitching prospects are highly regarded. Ok a few of them are. Ok 3. In order, Bailey, Cueto and Wood. the rest... not so much.

2 of those guys were at Dayton when Stubbs was drafted. That doesn't scream top prospect status to me. It's really no different than jumping on the Pauly/Gardner bandwagon a few years ago. Guys at High A are suspects, not prospects. In other words, I want to see it again, but at a higher level.

As I type this, understand that I am a huge Cueto and LeCure fan. I think both have big futures. but those futures are a couple of years away. 2009 at least likely for both players.

Linecum was an advanced college pitcher. Is he a typical player? Nope not even remotely. That doesn't mean he will fall apart on the mound.

Stubbs, from what I am reading, is built for baseball. doesn't mean he can hit a lick either.

And please don't compare him to Dunn. Adam Dunn has a track record in the major leagues. His service time is what seperates him from guys like Stubbs and even Bruce. Now can Adam learn from last year's collapse? I hop he can, but we are talking about a guy that if he stays healthy his entire career will hit over 600 HR's.

Drew Stubbs needs to hit one in the bigs before we start comparing him to Adam Dunn.

Well then by your own accounts, Lincecum is a suspect and not a prospect. Johnny Cueto has 50 more innings above Low-A than does Lincecum.
As far as the comparison to Dunn, it was more of a "when you look at a small sample size" thing. Stubbs had been playing baseball since February. I also am curious as to why you see Cueto in 2009 at least? He will start in AA in 2007. If her performs, he probably gets promoted to AAA sometime in the season. That puts him right on the doorstep for 2008. Maybe we wont need him, but maybe we will.
I am glad you brought up Bruce though, you know what his line was in Billings? .257/.358/.457. Sure Jay was just 18 at the time, but like Drew, he was adjusting to his first season of pro baseball. In his first full season though, Jay went nuts. Do I expect the same thing from Stubbs, no, I dont. But what changed from 2005 to 2006 for Jay? Coaching. Knowing what to expect and how to deal with being a professional. Probably some other things as well. I expect Drew to rebound from his poor showing in Billings next year and put up better numbers across the board.

[dougdirt]

Adam Dunn had a poor 2006. well he had a poor August and September of 2006. but he's a year removed from a season in which he had 77 XBH's, and 2 years removed from an 80 XBH season.

So are we saying Stubbs compares well to a guy that has done that? That he compares well to a guy that was destroying the Midwest league at age 20, and at age 21, the same age Stubbs is now, hit 51 HR's at three levels including 19 with the Reds. He also had a combined 40 doubles that year too.

Adam Dunn will give the Reds somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 doubles. sometimes more, sometimes less. He'll give the Reds 40+ HR's.

Are you saying Drew Stubbs projects to be that kind of player?

cuz I'm not seeing that. at least not yet.

I am not sure you get what the word projection means. Someone doesnt have to perform at a certain level right away to have a projection to do something. Much less in a 200 at bat sample. Like I stated before, Adam Dunn had a horrible 200 at bat stretch to end the season. If thats all we look at, then we would think Dunn is going to be absolutely atrocious next season. Instead, we take what we know about Dunn (wont ever hit for a decent average, walks a lot, hits for lots of power, cant play defense if his life depended on it) and go ok, .250/.380/.520 is not out of the realm of possibilty for Dunn at all. Do the same thing with Stubbs (probably wont ever hit for a high average, walks quite a bit, has great speed, can steal you bases, plays great defense, has good power) and he projects to be a solid player. 200 at bats in his first season as a pro dont change what he brings to the table.

[lollipopcurve]

Adam Dunn will give the Reds somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 doubles. sometimes more, sometimes less. He'll give the Reds 40+ HR's.

Are you saying Drew Stubbs projects to be that kind of player?

cuz I'm not seeing that. at least not yet.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying Stubbs projects to have some strengths and weaknesses that are similar to Dunn's strengths and weaknesses. IN looking at the details, Dunn has more power (he has more power than almost any player on the planet) and I'd be surprised if Stubbs' OBP can be as good as Dunn's. But you have to remember that Stubbs' assets include good defense in the middle of the diamond -- a major plus. Any evaluation of Stubbs that ignores that is a major miscalculation of his worth as a prospect.

[TRF]

I think HS position players are a different animal. But more on that in a minute.

Yep. I regard Linecum as a suspect. I'd have regarded Weaver that way too. But both are suspects in an area the Reds are hopelessly bankrupt in. Both were college pitchers. Both close to contributing. I see Cueto in AA this year too, but I am not sure that isn't rushing him. He started last year at Dayton. If he gets jumped to AAA, well Low A to AAA in less than 18 months is some speedy promotions for a pitcher of his age and background.

Which brings me to the HS players being a different animal. And you touched on it yourself: Coaching.

Drew Stubbs had the benefit of three years of coaching at a Big 12 school. Bruce's line of .257/.358/.457 was still better than what Stubbs did, even though Stubbs had the benefit of better coaching and facilities for three years prior to his professional debut.

[dougdirt]

I think HS position players are a different animal. But more on that in a minute.

Yep. I regard Linecum as a suspect. I'd have regarded Weaver that way too. But both are suspects in an area the Reds are hopelessly bankrupt in. Both were college pitchers. Both close to contributing. I see Cueto in AA this year too, but I am not sure that isn't rushing him. He started last year at Dayton. If he gets jumped to AAA, well Low A to AAA in less than 18 months is some speedy promotions for a pitcher of his age and background.

Which brings me to the HS players being a different animal. And you touched on it yourself: Coaching.

Drew Stubbs had the benefit of three years of coaching at a Big 12 school. Bruce's line of .257/.358/.457 was still better than what Stubbs did, even though Stubbs had the benefit of better coaching and facilities for three years prior to his professional debut.

And now he is going to get even better coaching either in Dayton or Sarasota. I think you are just putting way to much stress on 200 at bats for Stubbs. The minor leagues are all about learning and growing as a player. That is what they are there for. Sure, Lincecum is closer than Stubbs. It doesnt mean he will have the staying power Stubbs does though. With his mechanics and size, I wouldnt doubt it if Stubbs has a much longer and more productive major league career than Lincecum does. I also dont get the whole "closer to contributing" thing. Isnt the idea to get the guy who contributes the best in the end? If that is a Homer Bailey (comparing to Weaver) or a Drew Stubbs (comparing to Lincecum) then I dont care when they get to the Reds, as long as they produce when they do get there.