Drew Stubbs

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I'm gonna need at least 4,000 big league ab's before I can make any accurate projections.

That's at least better than relying upon 123 and perhaps ignoring 1800 from the minors.

[lollipopcurve]

That's at least better than relying upon 123 and perhaps ignoring 1800 from the minors.

To make what claim?

[TRF]

Listed below, player and career OPS.

• Beltran .857
• Hunter .804 four straight years over .800 5 out of his last 6
• Kemp .833
• McLouth .805
• Victorino .778 - 4 years, and he has made significant strides every year... likley .800+ from now on.
• Rajai Davis .728 - breakout season or fluke? He's 28, so I'll say fluke and give you this one.
• Cameron .788 - He's getting up there, but I won't be surprised at all if he finishes the season over .800 for the 7th time. He also had a .798 season too.
• Andrew McCutchen .801 - Rookie. Minor league numbers look promising to me.
• Marlon Byrd .759 - Blossomed at age 29. 3 straight years of .800 OPS production
• Adam Jones .735 - Just 23 years old, I think going forward no one will be surprised by numbers north of .800. He's a potential star IMO.
• Curtis Granderson .835 - In a strange decline, I think he's swinging for the fences a bit too much. The power is still there, but the triples are drying up. Triples are about speed not power, but he's still getting his SB's. Odd year for him.
• Kosuke Fukudome .763 - Older player, made huge strides at the plate. Frustrating defender. spectacular at times and makes bonehead plays out of what should be routine.
• Grady Sizemore .851 - Very much the down year for Sizemore. Injury hurt his numbers a lot. May was abysmal (he was hurt) he missed almost all of June, but every other month pretty much what you would expect.
• Dexter Fowler .756 - Rookie. Playing in Coors certainly helps. I think this years .782 OPS will be eclipsed next year.
  

That's the top 14 or so. Add in Upton, who is a talent worth giving another chance to and that makes 15. Of that 15, I throw out Fukudome (age) and Davis (fluke) as likely to post .800 OPS seasons.

So 13 including Upton.

And why do the Reds have to settle? This list tells me a team has a 50/50 chance right now of having a player of that caliber. Why keep setting the bar so low?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

To make what claim?

That Stubbs has the ability to consistently OPS at .760 I guess but really any specific claim that is significantly different from what might have been made 123 ABs ago.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

That's at least better than relying upon 123 and perhaps ignoring 1800 from the minors.

Just recognizing a trend for the prognosticators.

[lollipopcurve]

I guess but really any specific claim that is significantly different from what might have been made 123 ABs ago.

Like "he has power" vs. "he does not have power." What's your take? I think you can make the claim that he does have power, based on 123 ABs, with absolute certainty.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Just recognizing a trend for the prognosticators.

Sample size is a fundamental concept. It's not like people are suddenly inventing the wheel with Stubbs regarding the meaning of 100 ABs. Also, it's not like the archives aren't full of instances where sample size has bitten redzoners in the backside....

[jojo]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

Like "he has power" vs. "he does not have power." What's your take? I think you can make the claim that he does have power, based on 123 ABs, with absolute certainty.

I think one can say he can hit the ball far enough for it to clear the fence. I don't think one can say he'll be able to do it frequently enough to maintain an OPS=.760 given the sample size associated with his tenure as a Red. That kind of speaks to the heart of the issue doesn't it?

Truthfully, with Stubbs, the only thing that will solve this debate is more data. For that, we'll need some patience.

Right now, I think where we're at is someplace like this: Stubbs' minor league numbers suggest he will have trouble hitting for power. It's however possible that Stubbs can develop consistent power in the future. Whether he will increase his power and to what degree an increase in power is manifested, is really anyone's guess.


If the argument is what level of offensive production is necessary for Stubbs to be an everyday player, that's an entirely different question and one that is probably easier to guesstimate. For instance, if he is a +10 defender in center field (which would make him a top 5 defender at the position) he could probably OPS roughly .700 (wOBA= .310ish) and still be an average major leaguer (i.e. be good enough to be a regular). If one thinks he'd only be a +5 defender, than he'd need to post a wOBA=.320 (OPS=.740ish).

In my mind, there is a pretty good chance that Stubbs can become (maybe already is) and average major league player. Whether he will develop that additional 1.5 to 22 WAR a year above being an average player however remains the great uncertainty....

An OPS of .760 probably means he's a 4 WAR player (I'm in the crowd that thinks Stubbs might be a +10 glove). That would be huge (and basically mean he is a reasonable facsimile of Mike Cameron from a value standpoint).

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by TRF

And why do the Reds have to settle? This list tells me a team has a 50/50 chance right now of having a player of that caliber. Why keep setting the bar so low?

Who's setting the bar low? In his first month or so in the big leagues he's less than 50 pts from .800. We all say he needs to improve his game. Who's to say that he can't get his OPS up to .800? I think he has skills that can improve his game; conversely I'm not so so sure how much Janish can improve his. At this point I'm more interested in evaluating Stubbs' skill set than evaluating his numbers. I like what I see from his skill set

[chicoruiz]

The practically perfect comp that keeps popping into my head is Devon White...And while Devon White was no superstar, I'd take him in CF for the Reds every day and twice on Sunday.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

Sample size is a fundamental concept. It's not like people are suddenly inventing the wheel with Stubbs regarding the meaning of 100 ABs. Also, it's not like the archives aren't full of instances where sample size has bitten redzoners in the backside....

No doubt. Just noticing that size getting larger, which really isn't helpful in the realm of decision making. Nice for hindsight analysis, not so hot for directing our paths.

[lollipopcurve]

I think one can say he can hit the ball far enough for it to clear the fence.

In other words, we can't say anything that distinguishes him from any other major leaguer. Weak.

I don't think one can say he'll be able to do it frequently enough to maintain an OPS=.760 given the sample size associated with his tenure as a Red. That kind of speaks to the heart of the issue doesn't it?

What issue is that? What time frame -- this year? Next year? Ever? Some clarification needed on this prediction.

Truthfully, with Stubbs, the only thing that will solve this debate is more data. For that, we'll need some patience.

No, the debate about Stubbs has consistently been whether he possessed the power tool. Many posters rejected the scouting report on Stubbs that he could develop power. They looked at the numbers and decided the scouts' assessment was wrong. Where do you stand on that one? I think the 123 MLB ABs we've seen supply ample evidence.

It's however possible that Stubbs can develop consistent power in the future.

On what evidence are you making that claim? (Or are you just saying it's possible because it hasn't been disproven yet? Again, if so, just weak.) Because it does refute what many were saying (and some, still), based on the many ABs of data we have from his years in the minors.

You seem to already believe it would be well worth it to move Stubbs off CF in favor of a multimillion dollar investment in an aging Mike Cameron. If that's not coming to a premature decision on Stubbs, I don't know what is.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

No doubt. Just noticing that size getting larger, which really isn't helpful in the realm of decision making. Nice for hindsight analysis, not so hot for directing our paths.

As an aside, here's the thing about sample size and Stubbs. Increasing the sample size will only allow us to better estimate what he is now.

That said, projection systems like Pecota aren't seeing an OPS of .760 for Stubbs.

[dougdirt]

I like Drew Stubbs. He has the skills to be a .260/.350/.475 hitter in the majors. He isn't there yet, but he knows the strikezone and he has some pop in his bat that will play up even more because of his home park. I didn't vote and I won't because the option I would like isn't there. I want to see his OBP go up but maintain the power he has shown. To back up a few other comments in this thread, Stubbs seems to be patient to a fault at times. If he can get a better 'plan' for some at bats, I think he will see bigger strides being made across the board.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

In other words, we can't say anything that distinguishes him from any other major leaguer. Weak.

It's not weak. It acknowledges that small samples are often marked by wide swings in production levels that aren't necessarily indicative of a player's true skill (i.e. they may not be repeatable). Thin ice is weak and thin ice is what one steps upon when making definitive claims about power based upon 100 PAs.

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

What issue is that?

Whether Stubbs can consistently hit for power in the bigs?

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

What time frame -- this year? Next year? Ever? Some clarification needed on this prediction.

For SLG and OPS to reasonably be thought to reflect a player's true talent (i.e. for OPS to be considered something a player can consistently maintain) there should be at least 500 PAs.

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

No, the debate about Stubbs has consistently been whether he possessed the power tool. Many posters rejected the scouting report on Stubbs that he could develop power. They looked at the numbers and decided the scouts' assessment was wrong. Where do you stand on that one? I think the 123 MLB ABs we've seen supply ample evidence.

My stance is pretty simple. A player doesn't possess the power tool until he possesses consistent power. Until then he possess the potential to develop power.

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

On what evidence are you making that claim? (Or are you just saying it's possible because it hasn't been disproven yet? Again, if so, just weak.) Because it does refute what many were saying (and some, still), based on the many ABs of data we have from his years in the minors.

Players historically tend to develop increased power as they age. Not all do. Elvis Andrus is never going to hit 20 hrs. And then there is that scouts opinion issue concerning Stubb's potential to develop power....

Originally Posted by lollipopcurve

You seem to already believe it would be well worth it to move Stubbs off CF in favor of a multimillion dollar investment in an aging Mike Cameron. If that's not coming to a premature decision on Stubbs, I don't know what is.

I don't seem to believe it. I've stated that I think signing Mike Cameron to play center field next year gives the Reds a better chance of winning in 2010. That's because, well, Mike Cameron is probably going to be a significantly better centerfielder than Stubbs next year and I think adding a quality CF and SS to the mix can make a big difference (I've also argued for adding Hardy and Wolf in that scenario). In other words, it was a short term scenario predicated upon leveraging Rolen.

A key part of that argument is that Cameron likely wouldn't require a long contract and thus wouldn't be a block in center field. I've also argued that Stubbs could get playing time in left and it wouldnt stunt his development as a CFer because, well he's already developed that part of his game. It's his bat that needs development.