Drew Stubbs

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by TRF

The Reds development staff gets an F for Stubbs, the Reds MLB coaches a B and climbing for recognizing he's not a leadoff hitter and emphasizing his power game.

Of course, we're assigning causality without accounting for all the variables. It could very well be the case that Stubbs would have posted the exact same line out of the leadoff spot as he has out of the #7 spot and that the "improvement" we're seeing is as much a result of seeing more pitching and making adjustments as it is anything else.

Leadoff / #7 -- the skill set remains pretty consistent: pitch recognition, swing at good pitches, lay off bad pitches.

[nate]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Of course, we're assigning causality without accounting for all the variables. It could very well be the case that Stubbs would have posted the exact same line out of the leadoff spot as he has out of the #7 spot and that the "improvement" we're seeing is as much a result of seeing more pitching and making adjustments as it is anything else.

Leadoff / #7 -- the skill set remains pretty consistent: pitch recognition, swing at good pitches, lay off bad pitches.

Yes.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Of course, we're assigning causality without accounting for all the variables. It could very well be the case that Stubbs would have posted the exact same line out of the leadoff spot as he has out of the #7 spot and that the "improvement" we're seeing is as much a result of seeing more pitching and making adjustments as it is anything else.

Leadoff / #7 -- the skill set remains pretty consistent: pitch recognition, swing at good pitches, lay off bad pitches.

Skill without context. I don't know, none of us do what adjustments Baker and his staff made when dropping him to 7th in the order. But 2009 was abysmal at AAA. 2008 was a series of promotions where he started out hot, then slumped badly. He went through three levels of the minors without dominating a single one of them (well, AAA, but he was there all of 75 AB's)

It's like the Reds were trying to fit him into a mold shaped like Juan Pierre. He was often compared to Mike Cameron on this board, but the Reds weren't training him to be Mike Cameron.

Skills without context. His body had the idea, the best idea of the type of player he wants, or rather can be. He was just handed the wrong instruction manual.

[TRF]

Oh and Sea Ray... He's not a bust.

i feel dirty.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

Of course, we're assigning causality without accounting for all the variables. It could very well be the case that Stubbs would have posted the exact same line out of the leadoff spot as he has out of the #7 spot and that the "improvement" we're seeing is as much a result of seeing more pitching and making adjustments as it is anything else.

Leadoff / #7 -- the skill set remains pretty consistent: pitch recognition, swing at good pitches, lay off bad pitches.

Or he could have an entirely different approach in his head as a leadoff hitter which gets in the way of him being a successful hitter.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by TRF

Or he could have an entirely different approach in his head as a leadoff hitter which gets in the way of him being a successful hitter.

A valid explanation, but not any more or any less valid an explanation than the one I put forward -- the more pitching he has seen, the better he has become at recognizing what opposing pitchers are doing to retire him and countering that with adjustments of his own at the plate.

The point is, it's silly to "blame" parts of an organization for failures when you cannot agree, or even guess with a reasonable degree of certainty, as to what the problem was in the first place.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by TRF

Oh and Sea Ray... He's not a bust.

i feel dirty.

You are a stand up guy and at the end of the day that matters more than what we spout ...

[osuceltic]

What I think is interesting is that TRF became the voice of the anti-Stubbs crowd, but he was just one of many who were tough on the kid over the past three years. The others have pretty much disappeared -- sort of like one poster who deemed Mesoraco a bust and enjoyed saying "I told you so" as the kid strugged in his first two seasons.

Whether it's Stubbs, Mesoraco, Stewart, Rolen or Dusty Baker, we all should remember we're not as smart as we think we are. "I was wrong" may not taste good coming out, but you're not going to choke on it either.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

A valid explanation, but not any more or any less valid an explanation than the one I put forward -- the more pitching he has seen, the better he has become at recognizing what opposing pitchers are doing to retire him and countering that with adjustments of his own at the plate.

The point is, it's silly to "blame" parts of an organization for failures when you cannot agree, or even guess with a reasonable degree of certainty, as to what the problem was in the first place.

Well the path they had him on certainly didn't help. And he wasn't recognizing pitches in AAA. Numbers and math are fine, but have to be put into a human being/context. Stubbs + Leadoff = bad. Coffey + Closer equaled disaster. Phillips + cleanup = out machine. There is a human element to the game, and for whatever reason, Stubbs leading off does not work. And that's ok. Bat him 7th and let him drive guys in. If he gets on because he is pitched around, fine. He's upped the pitch count and is a SB threat.

Sometimes you can't just say put player X in the 1 slot just because a guy SEEMS to fit your idea of a leadoff hitter. It's more than tools.

[TRF]

One more thing. The development side of the Reds has been a problem for years. Not finding a permanent position for Frazier was criminal. How many reds minor leaguers from 1998-2004 were developed into top flight major leaguers? Dunn and Votto. That's it I think. Maybe one more. Expand that to 2006 and you can add Bruce (on the cusp) and Cueto. Will Stubbs and Bailey become more than what they have been? Krivsky really screwed up Bailey by bringing him north waaaaay too soon.

Bailey, Stubbs, Cueto all with the tools/talent to be at the very top of their positions, but for some reason they aren't there yet. You could say youth, but even among their peers in age, they aren't mentioned with the same revere as others. I'm glad Leake went straight to the show. No chance of the Reds minor league instructors damaging him. Though I hear Brown is a good pitching coach.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by TRF

Oh and Sea Ray... He's not a bust.

i feel dirty.

Does anyone else feel like this is a truly historic post on RZ?

TRF, it has been a pleasure to read your consistent (and well-written) Stubbs opinions these past three years or so. I'm glad to see you aren't too entrenched to admit you were wrong on some of them.

[TRF]

Hey, I still think Valaika and Dorn are better hitters from that draft, but overall he is the best overall player.

can't.... get..... clean....

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by TRF

One more thing. The development side of the Reds has been a problem for years. Not finding a permanent position for Frazier was criminal. How many reds minor leaguers from 1998-2004 were developed into top flight major leaguers? Dunn and Votto. That's it I think. Maybe one more. Expand that to 2006 and you can add Bruce (on the cusp) and Cueto. Will Stubbs and Bailey become more than what they have been? Krivsky really screwed up Bailey by bringing him north waaaaay too soon.

Bailey, Stubbs, Cueto all with the tools/talent to be at the very top of their positions, but for some reason they aren't there yet. You could say youth, but even among their peers in age, they aren't mentioned with the same revere as others. I'm glad Leake went straight to the show. No chance of the Reds minor league instructors damaging him. Though I hear Brown is a good pitching coach.

This new drum you're beating-- like Keith Moon on greenies-- doesn't hold weght logically, TRF.

What you're saying is that the Reds are so adept at drafting (Bruce, Stubbs, Bailey) and finding international free agents (Cueto) that they find prospects that not only don't need help, they find prospects that play at All Star or near All Star levels after being harmed by a minor league system so putrid that it can't help but destroy careers.

Fact is, the draft, free agent acquisitions, and minor league development have worked hand in hand to make this team a legitimate contender.

[TRF]

Scouting for the draft and int'l free agents has been pretty good. The Reds have been just bad enough for top 10 picks, but not bad enough for a top 5 pick. The picks between 2000-2003, were horrendous, but we can attribute that to the cheapness of Allen/Lindner and Bowden's crew. But the 2004 draft was very good, 2005 was too. 2006 was considered a weak year, but the Reds got a lot out of that draft. 2007 is starting to look fantastic.

But... Frazier has no position. The Reds have yet to develop a TOR starter. The IF has one player developed by the Reds in Votto. The OF is better, but has no superstars. The C position has been a running joke for a decade, but certainly looks promising in the minors right now.

There have been 4 regime changes in the last 7 years. That takes a toll on development, as philosophies change. Krivsky smartly cleaned house when he came on board, something DanO should have done. Jocketty didn't as I think he helped WK build the infrastructure. Probably a good idea there. Get the Jimbo people gone.

Here is a case in point. Strasburg was considered more polished than Chapman, but WAS sent him to AA to start the year. Why? Development. get him used to the 5 day grind while facing talent he could better handle. That is smart development. It's also smart from a PR standpoint, but that's another discussion.

Stubbs was rushed through the minors, even though his bat wasn't even close to ready. His glove was, certainly. But so was Dickerson's, and he was held back because of his bat. They have very similar skills, excellent defenders, some power, great speed. So why was one rushed and the other on a slower development track?

Why is the Reds top pick from 2 years ago (Alonso) OPSing .631? Was he a bad pick or is he being developed wrong.

Does anyone really look at the Reds as an organization and have the words professional, plan, organized, roadmap come to mind? To me, on the development side, they seem to react more than plan. They seem willing to take wild chances like Soto to catcher or Gil to pitcher. Which is fine. But how do you not have a position for one of your top prospects? Why would you move your #1 pick to LF at AA when he's clearly a 1B? I don't care that Votto is the Reds 1B. Alonso only has value at 1B, not LF. If he never plays an inning as a Red, but fetches value in a trade, then the pick isn't wasted. But if he's a sub .800 OPS corner OF that is, well, not a good defender, then the pick was pointless.

Now going forward, the Reds could be developing a plan to better train their minor leaguers. I don't see it, but it could be there. IMO they are hurting Frazier and Alonso, could have done Chapman better by starting him in AA and have yet to find and develop that TOR pitcher. I think they have two TOR arms in Bailey and Cueto, but haven't developed them into that yet. No one in the minors other than Chapman fits that TOR bill. In fact, Bailey was handled so poorly, he could have been Reithed.

Is it because of scouting or development?

Hey, its just my opinion.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by TRF

But... Frazier has no position. The Reds have yet to develop a TOR starter. The IF has one player developed by the Reds in Votto. The OF is better, but has no superstars. The C position has been a running joke for a decade, but certainly looks promising in the minors right now.

One of Frazier's biggest plus is his ability to play multiple positions. You can bemoan the fact that he doesn't have a true position, but he creates value with his versatility. There are many cases in which a player is developed in the minors at one position but is shifted to another in the majors.

Here is a case in point. Strasburg was considered more polished than Chapman, but WAS sent him to AA to start the year. Why? Development. get him used to the 5 day grind while facing talent he could better handle. That is smart development. It's also smart from a PR standpoint, but that's another discussion.

Stubbs was rushed through the minors, even though his bat wasn't even close to ready. His glove was, certainly. But so was Dickerson's, and he was held back because of his bat. They have very similar skills, excellent defenders, some power, great speed. So why was one rushed and the other on a slower development track?

Bad comp. Strasburg was rightfully considered to be polished and almost MLB ready when he was drafted last year. Stubbs on the other hand was considered a raw prospect, even though he had 3 years of major college baseball under him.

To be honest I try and avoid from arguing about Stubbs with you because it really leads to no where but I think you have this whole development thing completely wrong. I think its fair to say that with an attrition rate of 50% once a player reaches the majors, and in Stubbs case looks to be staying for a considerable time, the development was fine. You are miss a large part of a players development if you are relying on numbers and numbers only. I think its fair to say that the Reds developed Stubbs properly even though each step of the way you were saying they are rushing him.

Its not that you were wrong, but that you (and I) are not privy to the right amount of information to make an educated decision upon a prospects development. I even remember when Jay Bruce was developing and killing minor league pitching the organization was worried about his ability to take a walk. They wanted his BA and OBP to be around .100 separated before he was promoted. He blasted his way to the majors but it looks like just now had he developed that patience at the plate to take his game to the next level. Numbers often time are too deceiving when it comes to making a decision based upon a prospect.

Why is the Reds top pick from 2 years ago (Alonso) OPSing .631? Was he a bad pick or is he being developed wrong.

Does anyone really look at the Reds as an organization and have the words professional, plan, organized, roadmap come to mind? To me, on the development side, they seem to react more than plan. They seem willing to take wild chances like Soto to catcher or Gil to pitcher. Which is fine. But how do you not have a position for one of your top prospects? Why would you move your #1 pick to LF at AA when he's clearly a 1B? I don't care that Votto is the Reds 1B. Alonso only has value at 1B, not LF. If he never plays an inning as a Red, but fetches value in a trade, then the pick isn't wasted. But if he's a sub .800 OPS corner OF that is, well, not a good defender, then the pick was pointless.

Don't understand this logic either. If the Reds feel Alonso's bat is a difference making type of bat then it makes all the sense in the world to move him off of 1b. You aren't going to move Votto, who has made himself into a top tier 1b in the game, and Alonso doesn't have a place to play. If he can play LF and is able to hit then he provides the Reds great value, more so than any trade value he possesses. When drafted many people thought he had the ability to become a .300/.400/.500+ player. If the Reds still feel he had that type of ability, he has more value to the Reds in LF than he does in any trade.

FWIW Teixeira has a sub .700 OPS right now for the Yankees, are they misusing him? Or are we jumping to conclusions due to a small sample size?