Drew Stubbs

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Taking a pitcher with the projection of Tim Lincecum was absolutely working on the plus side of probability. And the guy is 5'11". It's two inches shorter than Bob Gibson and one inch shorter than Mario Soto. As overused as the term "electric arm" is, Lincecum has one. Weaver is tall but also has an unorthodox delivery. You discounted Weaver because of his delivery. Now you're talking about signability even though the Reds have worked with Weaver's agent (as have all MLB teams) pretty consistently.

Lincecum (aka "Tiny Tim" as you call him in an effort to debase) is too short and slight of frame. You've previously claimed that Weaver is destined to fail because of bad mechanics. But Bailey's gonna be an ace because he's tall (yet, he's sleight of frame) and throws a baseball harder than he actually throws a baseball and we should all wait and see on Drew Stubbs because his toe injury has demonstrably affected his hitting even though it obviously hasn't affected his running.

Sorry, doug, but I'm not buying any of that.

Steel, for some reason you really just push the right buttons that make me respond.

We will simply just have to disagree that taking a short, absolutely skinny pitcher was or was not on the good side of probability.

Lincecum is a very good pitcher. Nowhere have I ever said anything otherwise in terms of his pitching ability.

Weaver does have bad mechanics.

I didn't dub him Tiny Tim. I have seen it quite a few other places. It wasn't something I just made up to debase anything. It was a nickname I saw and well it surely fits the bill. If I stood next to the guy we would look almost exactly the same (23 years old, 5'10, 165 lbs).... well at least from a distance.

I would love for you to show me where I, or anyone for that matter has said Bailey is going to be an ace because he is tall. My best friend is the same height as Homer. He isn't going to be an ace... heck, I can destroy the baseball off of him. I don't think I have said that Bailey throws a baseball harder than he throws. Bailey is 6'4 and 205 pounds.... thats not really in the same place as 5'10 and 160 pounds. Thats an extra 45 pounds spread out over 6 inches.

As for Stubbs toe, if you don't think his toe injury hasn't affected his running game, then you either have a lot of faith in the MWL catchers that throw him out a lot, or you are just trying to go against the possibility that Drew is having some struggles at the plate because of an injury.

Also, edabbs. Your comment about Cueto was noted. Cueto is 5'10 and 198 pounds. Lincecum is 5'10 and 170 pounds. They may be the same height, but in terms of size, they aren't really comparable.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Shhh...Cueto is actually very tall and well built. If he weren't, he wouldn't be a Reds top prospect.

Laugh if you will, but it won't change the fact that we are simply different people and not ignorant as guys like to insinuate. Most people agreed Lincecum was someone they would have chose over Stubbs, even with the size issue.

Fact is some of us are not prepared to give up on Stubbs just yet, what does it hurt? You OTOH apparently have given up on him. So the question is why is that if someone stays positive on a prospect we are scoffed at and made light of? He has 584 PA's in his pro career and already he's a bust, unreal.

Let's see how much of a bust he really is:

Drew Stubbs Vs. Mystery Player (= MP)

Stubbs
A- (Billings) (21 years old, 242 PA's)
.252 BA, .368 OBP%, .400 Slg%

A (Dayton) (22 yrs old, 342 PA's)
.254 BA, .363 OBP%, .389 (Incomplete)

MP
A- (21 yrs old, 199 PA's)
.272 BA, .384 OBP%, .456 Slg%

A (22 yrs old, 549 PA's)
.280 BA, .367 OBP%, .469 Slg%

A+ (23 yrs old, 540 PA's)
.304 BA, .374 OBP%, .514 Slg%

AA (24 yrs old, 420 PA's)
.297 BA, .386 OBP%, .647 Slg%

See the jump in BA and Slg% sometime after 750-800 PA's, that's not a bad place to look for a spike in production right now Stubbs is still at 584 and I might add he has already started to play better. All this with an injury to a lower extremity which if in his plant foot could make a guy not plant as hard thus throwing off his ability to hit for power. Anyone who has swung a bat and had a foot injury can tell you that if they are not putting all the weight they should on the back foot they are more likely to get on top of the ball as opposed to under it moreso than usual.

Here's the link to the foot injury.

http://http://www.daytondailynews.co...dragonsb1.html

Bottom line give the guy a little more time (with some health) before you jump all over some of us for being too optimistic about him. BTW the mystery player is your 2006 NL MVP.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Cueto is 5'10 and 198 pounds. Lincecum is 5'10 and 170 pounds. They may be the same height, but in terms of size, they aren't really comparable.

Cueto is listed at 174 lbs. at baseballamerica.com and at 175 at the baseball cube. Even lookouts.com doesn't list Cueto at 198. They have him at 183 (must have weighed him wet).

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

Fact is some of us are not prepared to give up on Stubbs just yet, what does it hurt? You OTOH apparently have given up on him.

Ah, that's where you're mistaken. I play in the land of probability, not absolutes. I actually like Stubbs' plate discipline. If there's hope for him, that's where it starts. That being said, I'm not going to have as much patience for his offensive game as I will for a younger version of Drew Stubbs. The value the Reds received with his pick appeared to be well less than optimal when the pick was made and Stubbs hasn't done anything since to make it look any better. However, "given up" is too strong a phrase. Disappointed and pessimistic would be more accurate as I can't remember the last "if he hits" Reds player to actually work out.

[corkedbat]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

In 1985, the Reds drafted Barry Larkin, but look at what a waste of a draft pick was. I mean, the Reds could have had a guy with over 700 homeruns in Barry Bonds. Wow!

So basically, you're saying Stubbs should Roid up?

[jojo]

About the only thing that Lincecum and Cueto have in common concerning their projectability is that I was bigger then both by the time I was 13.

Now it's absolutely true that conservative scouting directors have a bias concerning pitcher body types-pitchers who fit the "tall but not too tall mode" generally have a better downward plane, mechanics, and durability. Pitchers who are too short or too tall to fit the mold basically are only able to buck the trend because of their exceptional stuff.

Lincecum has electric stuff-it's dynamite stuff really. While I like Cueto and his stuff will likely make him a good major leaguer (albeit not a starter), his stuff is not even in the same category as Lincecum.

Now to the draft, Lincecum was clearly the highest reward player in the draft given his stuff was a class above everyone elses and his college history suggested a very short trip through the majors. Why did he fall to #10? There was risk associated with him as there were questions about his command, mechanics (a short guy with a weird delivery), and his college pitch counts.

That said, when the highest reward player in the draft falls into your lap, you take him. When he also fits one of your greatest organisational needs, you take him twice just to make sure. I understand teams taking Hochevar, Miller, or Morrow ahead of Lincecum. But, to me, taking a position player with serious questions concerning his potential to develop offensively does nothing to mitigate risk relative to taking a short pitcher with funked mechanics and an explosive ceiling. The hindsight card really doesn't work with that decision.

[camisadelgolf]

Just a warning: I totally digress in this post . . .

My personal belief is that the Reds draft for need (just look at this year's draft with all the catchers and "shortstops" taken). The Reds have Arroyo and Harang signed for years. Bailey will be here for at least as long. Between Carlos Fisher, Sean Watson, Johnny Cueto, Phil Dumatrait, Bobby Livingston, Kyle Lotzkar, Elizardo Ramirez, Alex Smit, Daryl Thompson, etc., the Reds are probably figuring at least one or two of them can pan out as fourth or fifth starters (which is reasonable, in my opinion).

With Krivsky's plan, you know Dunn's not going to stick around. Griffey's retirement is knocking at the door. Ryan Freel still hasn't proved he can play every day and could self-destruct at any moment. Meanwhile, in the outfield, the Reds will have Josh Hamilton and Jay Bruce. Can you imagine the outfield the Reds would have with a speedy, Gold Glove-caliber center fielder who is willing to take a walk and has some pop? Then, in the infield, assuming you don't stick with Encarnacion and Phillips for price reasons, you still have Joey Votto, and some combination of Chris Valaika, Todd Frazier, Neftali Soto, Zack Cozart, and/or Juan Francisco. That's kind of why I think they say Krivsky is trying so hard to steal Salty from Atlanta--because catcher is the only position the Reds aren't prepared to fill in the near future (since Mesoraco is probably several years away from being a Major Leaguer).

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Cueto is listed at 174 lbs. at baseballamerica.com and at 175 at the baseball cube. Even lookouts.com doesn't list Cueto at 198. They have him at 183 (must have weighed him wet).

Well, I would much rather go by what the Reds say over BA or TBC. I got my information from Milb.com (link here).
I just got out the Reds media guide and he was listed at 183 in there. When Johnny was promoted to Chattanooga though, his weight changed on milb.com. Same thing with Lincecum. When he was first called up to the Giants he was actually listed on their official website at 155 lbs. Now he is listed at 170. Did they both gain 15 pounds or are they both artificially 15 pounds heavier?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by jojo

About the only thing that Lincecum and Cueto have in common concerning their projectability is that I was bigger then both by the time I was 13.

Now it's absolutely true that conservative scouting directors have a bias concerning pitcher body types-pitchers who fit the "tall but not too tall mode" generally have a better downward plane, mechanics, and durability. Pitchers who are too short or too tall to fit the mold basically are only able to buck the trend because of their exceptional stuff.

Lincecum has electric stuff-it's dynamite stuff really. While I like Cueto and his stuff will likely make him a good major leaguer (albeit not a starter), his stuff is not even in the same category as Lincecum.

Now to the draft, Lincecum was clearly the highest reward player in the draft given his stuff was a class above everyone elses and his college history suggested a very short trip through the majors. Why did he fall to #10? There was risk associated with him as there were questions about his command, mechanics (a short guy with a weird delivery), and his college pitch counts.

That said, when the highest reward player in the draft falls into your lap, you take him. When he also fits one of your greatest organisational needs, you take him twice just to make sure. I understand teams taking Hochevar, Miller, or Morrow ahead of Lincecum. But, to me, taking a position player with serious questions concerning his potential to develop offensively does nothing to mitigate risk relative to taking a short pitcher with funked mechanics and an explosive ceiling. The hindsight card really doesn't work with that decision.

Jojo, I can go with most of what you said, but lets not forget that Lincecum had some serious control issues coming out of college. His senior year was his best bb/9 year of the 4, and he still walked over 4 batters per 9 innings. I don't know if you were lurking around back for that draft, but I wanted the Reds to draft anyone not named Drew Stubbs. Personally, I wanted Billy Rowell, but as long as they didn't go with Stubbs I was going to be ok with it. Well they went with Stubbs. Stupid decision at the time if you would have asked me. Regardless though, Stubbs is ours. This is a Reds website. Everytime someone brings up Drew Stubbs, someone, or hords of someones jump in to yell about Tim Lincecum.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Jojo, I can go with most of what you said, but lets not forget that Lincecum had some serious control issues coming out of college. His senior year was his best bb/9 year of the 4, and he still walked over 4 batters per 9 innings. I don't know if you were lurking around back for that draft, but I wanted the Reds to draft anyone not named Drew Stubbs. Personally, I wanted Billy Rowell, but as long as they didn't go with Stubbs I was going to be ok with it. Well they went with Stubbs. Stupid decision at the time if you would have asked me. Regardless though, Stubbs is ours. This is a Reds website. Everytime someone brings up Drew Stubbs, someone, or hords of someones jump in to yell about Tim Lincecum.

Interesting that you say that...this is from Olney's blog today:

Tim Lincecum on Saturday: 29 batters faced, and only three of those saw hitters' counts of 2-0 or 3-1.

I think a lack of control isn't as much of a red flag when it comes to youngsters as some believe. Control can come around.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Interesting that you say that...this is from Olney's blog today:



I think a lack of control isn't as much of a red flag when it comes to youngsters as some believe. Control can come around.

Surely, but it was a question mark coming into the draft as he had shown an inability to throw strikes consistantly.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Ah, that's where you're mistaken. I play in the land of probability, not absolutes. I actually like Stubbs' plate discipline. If there's hope for him, that's where it starts. That being said, I'm not going to have as much patience for his offensive game as I will for a younger version of Drew Stubbs. The value the Reds received with his pick appeared to be well less than optimal when the pick was made and Stubbs hasn't done anything since to make it look any better. However, "given up" is too strong a phrase. Disappointed and pessimistic would be more accurate as I can't remember the last "if he hits" Reds player to actually work out.

Point taken, but why have a problem with me for having more patience than you do. Do you believe that I must be ignorant because I cannot see he should be doing better coming out of 4 yrs of college and still after a year hasn't advanced beyond low A ball. I'm not blind to the possibility that he may not ever hit well enough to be a starting major league CF. I just choose to remain optimistic that he will, that's who I am an optimist you are obviously a natural pessimist. So I suggest we quit trying to play mother nature and respect the other's born nature.

[Kc61]

Guy is starting to hit.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Guy is starting to hit.

Guy is OPSing 756. At 22 in Low A ball to be on any kind of track to the majors he needs to be at least 100 points higher. He has been a disappointment and at 22 the clock is ticking.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by flyer85

Guy is OPSing 756. At 22 in Low A ball to be on any kind of track to the majors he needs to be at least 100 points higher. He has been a disappointment and at 22 the clock is ticking.

Actually its .770, but thats not the point. Drew has been an anomoly of sorts. This is the 4th month of the season. He has an OPS of .850 in May and an OPS of 1.113 in July. The other months are .697 (April) and .478 (June).

The bright side is, he has had two solid/spectacular months. It shows that he is capable to puting things together. The downside is he has had 2 attrocious months as well.

You can say he has been a disappointment if you want. I never pegged him from draft day to be in the majors any sooner than when he was 24, so as long as he continues to improve then he has not been a disappointment in my mind. There is no 'clock' per say at the age of 22.