Drew Stubbs

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

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.

You can infer what you like, but the fact of the matter is that I wouldn't be involved in a discussion with you if I thought you ignorant. And my "nature" isn't to play the pessimist. Heck, I've tried to tell ORG that the Reds actually do have a potential window over the next couple of years if they play their cards right.

"Mother nature", for me, is "show me"; especially when a prospect had concerns about his bat when drafted and continues to have concerns about his bat while behaving in a way (high frequency of SB attempts, "gliding" in the OF) that runs contrary to reasoning that excuses the lack of a bat.

doug says there's no "clock" at age 22. I can assure you that when you're dealing with a college prospect at #8 in the draft, there is a projected clock or that player wouldn't have been drafted. Expectations are high, and they should be high for a college player taken in the top 10 in the draft.

BTW, as much random griping about Strikeouts that we see, it's not likely to stop with Drew Stubbs. The guy has struck out more than all but three MLB hitters and his AB/K rate would also rank third in MLB. Unfortunately, his power output (.133 IsoP) is below average. What the Reds have so far is a guy who might just strike out about 165-170 times a season and maybe more. I'm sure that'll play very well in the land of public opinion. Put that in the OF along with Jay Bruce's projected 150-odd K's and we're likely to see a Marty Brennaman meltdown of epic proportion. It'll be funny.

[camisadelgolf]

Don't get me wrong--we all know Stubbs will strike out a lot no matter where he plays--but I think part of Stubbs' high strikeout rate is attributed to A.) the wild pitching in A-level baseball and B.) Stubbs being asked to tinker with his swing.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

Don't get me wrong--we all know Stubbs will strike out a lot no matter where he plays--but I think part of Stubbs' high strikeout rate is attributed to A.) the wild pitching in A-level baseball and B.) Stubbs being asked to tinker with his swing.

"Wild" pitchers wouldn't push Stubbs' K rate. They'd push his BB rate even higher- especially considering that Stubbs' plate discipline is already a strength. For pitcher wildness to be a signficant contributing factor to Stubb's K rate, we'd see an erosion of his BB rate because that would mean Stubbs would be swinging at more pitches out of the zone. But we don't see that.

Maybe it's just that Stubbs' high K rate is caused by Drew Stubbs?

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

"Wild" pitchers wouldn't push Stubbs' K rate. They'd push his BB rate even higher- especially considering that Stubbs' plate discipline is already a strength. For pitcher wildness to be a signficant contributing factor to Stubb's K rate, we'd see an erosion of his BB rate because that would mean Stubbs would be swinging at more pitches out of the zone. But we don't see that.

Maybe it's just that Stubbs' high K rate is caused by Drew Stubbs?

I see where you're coming from with your first point, but I disagree about his plate discipline being a strength. (Being able to take a walk doesn't mean you have good plate discipline, in my opinion--it just means you have patience. That's a great thing to have in a leadoff hitter.)

What are you trying to do when you say, "Maybe it's just that Stubbs' high K rate is caused by Drew Stubbs?" Are you trying to be difficult? Not only have I pointed out that we all agree that Drew Stubbs will always strike out a lot, but I mentioned that, as at least one coach has been quoted saying, they have made efforts to mess with Stubbs' swing, which might help explain why Stubbs' strikeout rate is so high.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

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.

Boy, that comparison did your point no good. So what you're saying is that Howard was a standard deviation or two better than Stubbs at the same levels. BTW, I believe Howard was also doing that in pitchers parks in pitchers leagues while Stubbs has struggled in hitters leagues in two of the best offensive parks around.

All the Howard comparison does is point out how poorly Stubbs has played.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

Boy, that comparison did your point no good. So what you're saying is that Howard was a standard deviation or two better than Stubbs at the same levels. BTW, I believe Howard was also doing that in pitchers parks in pitchers leagues while Stubbs has struggled in hitters leagues in two of the best offensive parks around.

All the Howard comparison does is point out how poorly Stubbs has played.

You were half right. Batavia, where Howard played his first year was actually a hitters park. Lakewood suppressed HR incredibly, but the doubles rate was incredible there like you woulud imagine in a park that supprsesses HRs. Hits, walks, doubles and strikeouts though were either normal or above average there though.

Dayton also plays fairly pitcher friendly according to BBTF minor league park factors from 2003-2005.

Team	         R   	 H   	 2B      HR      BB      SO
Dayton	 	 1.05 	 0.98 	 0.84 	 1.04 	 0.87 	 0.86

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

You were half right. Batavia, where Howard played his first year was actually a hitters park. Lakewood suppressed HR incredibly, but the doubles rate was incredible there like you woulud imagine in a park that supprsesses HRs. Hits, walks, doubles and strikeouts though were either normal or above average there though.

Dayton also plays fairly pitcher friendly according to BBTF minor league park factors from 2003-2005.

Team	         R   	 H   	 2B      HR      BB      SO
Dayton	 	 1.05 	 0.98 	 0.84 	 1.04 	 0.87 	 0.86

Didn't Dayton used to rate as one of the lustier hitting parks in the MWL? Admittedly, the teams there got so dreadfully bad after the Encarnacion/Pena class rolled through that I haven't paid as much attention to such things in recent years.

Anyway, the New York-Penn League and Sally League are far more pitcher friendly than the Pioneer League and Midwest League. Batavia, with its low altitude and humidity, would be the most lopsided pitchers park in the history of the Pioneer League. It should also be mentioned that the NYPL and PL are not equivalent leagues. The New York-Penn and Northwest leagues are considered to have superior competition to the Pioneer and Appy leagues.

[dougdirt]

I didnt really look at the leagues, just the parks. I do know that this season Dayton is playing as a slight hitters park, but I tend to not look at park factors from 1 season as they can be dramatically changed by the group of players that are there.

Likewise though here are the park factors for the MWL vs SAL for just this season

League	1B	2B	3B	HR	SO	BB
MID	+0.004	-0.007	-0.001	-0.004	+0.008	-0.007
SAL	-0.005	+0.007	+0.001	+0.004	-0.007	+0.007

Of course, a 1 season, or in this case, not even a full season can really be attributed to sample size/players.

Looking at Lakewood this year the HR rate is slightly below average, but from 2003-2005 it was insanely low.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I didnt really look at the leagues, just the parks. I do know that this season Dayton is playing as a slight hitters park, but I tend to not look at park factors from 1 season as they can be dramatically changed by the group of players that are there.

Likewise though here are the park factors for the MWL vs SAL for just this season

League	1B	2B	3B	HR	SO	BB
MID	+0.004	-0.007	-0.001	-0.004	+0.008	-0.007
SAL	-0.005	+0.007	+0.001	+0.004	-0.007	+0.007

Of course, a 1 season, or in this case, not even a full season can really be attributed to sample size/players.

Looking at Lakewood this year the HR rate is slightly below average, but from 2003-2005 it was insanely low.

It's always important to understand the league contexts. Your relation to sea level, average humidity, average barometric pressure, average number of windy days and park configurations all play a critical role.

For instance, the Pioneer League with its thin air and lunar gravity is a far better hitting circuit than the Appy League. The Northwest League is a better hitting circuit than the NY-P. The MWL has long been considered the hitters circuit in low A in opposing to the heavy air pitching circuit that is the Sally League. The Cali League is a hitters paradise while the FSL heavily favors pitchers (with the Carolina League tilting slightly toward pitching). The Texas League is infamous for hitting while the Southern and Eastern leagues are pitching circuits. PCL - hitters league. IL - pitchers league.

There's no doubt in my mind if you normalized the stats from Howard and Stubbs based on where they played, the already sizable gap between them would grow to over 100+ OPS points.

[flyer85]

Originally Posted by M2

There's no doubt in my mind if you normalized the stats from Howard and Stubbs based on where they played, the already sizable gap between them would grow to over 100+ OPS points.

Howard is just a rare example of a early 20 prospect that overcomes some not impressive numbers put up in A ball. The landscape is littered with hundreds that don't for everyone that does.

I've never said Stubbs can't still turn out to be an impact player in the majors, just that the odds he is trying to overcome are long ones.

[M2]

Originally Posted by flyer85

Howard is just a rare example of a early 20 prospect that overcomes some not impressive numbers put up in A ball. The landscape is littered with hundreds that don't for everyone that does.

I've never said Stubbs can't still turn out to be an impact player in the majors, just that the odds he is trying to overcome are long ones.

I still can't find any good major leaguer roughly equivalent to Stubbs. That's the scary part of the Howard comparison. The silver lining example people keep reaching for was literally two standard deviations better than Stubbs.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

I still can't find any good major leaguer roughly equivalent to Stubbs. That's the scary part of the Howard comparison. The silver lining example people keep reaching for was literally two standard deviations better than Stubbs.

Lets not forget though that Drew still probably has 150 more at bats this season.

[M2]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Lets not forget though that Drew still probably has 150 more at bats this season.

True. Hopefully they'll be lusty, powerful ABs. Conan ABs if you will.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

True. Hopefully they'll be lusty, powerful ABs. Conan ABs if you will.

We can always hope he continues his July pace . Doubtful, but I just hope he doesn't go June on us anytime ever again.

[Mario-Rijo]

The argument that I was trying to make with the Howard comparison is that it took a 21 yr old "phenom" if you will, somewhere in the neighborhood of 750-800 PA's for his #'s to improve. Both his BA and Slg% jumped approximately 20 pts each after that #.

My whole argument is let the kid play and have his time like anyone else. If his #'s haven't improved within the next 300 AB's or so then perhaps it's time to start to worry that he will never "get it". But I just think it's a tad premature regardless of his age. He came in with the issue, so he inevitably was going to struggle. Did everyone think he was magically going to turn it around within a season of getting minor league instruction? Perhaps a little longer is necc. based on Howards #'s. It certainly couldn't hurt, besides he has been showing something lately FWIW.