Stubbs vs. Votto

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by jojo

I'm not a fan of how he mixed BP stats with WAR in his argument (because BP sets replacement level differently than WAR). But I think his conclusion is alright with the caveat that Doug brought up being that its possible Stubbs isn't a league average bat.

I agree with the general premise that if Stubbs can bat like a league average CF (or even slightly below average), he's going to be a very valuable player.

Is he going to be able to do that? I'm a little skeptical, but hopeful. IMO, this is the type of young player you want to take a chance on. His defense is good enough that if he struggles with the bat, he's not going to drag down the entire team. That was one of my huge problems with Larson getting so much playing time. His glove was so horrible that when he failed to hit, he was contributing absolutley nothing. At least Stubs will contribute on defense, even if he struggles adjusting to ML pitching on offense.

[HokieRed]

Originally Posted by nate

I think combining a Dunn and Stubbs thread would be very Redszoney.

I'd be careful of this. It might possibly never end.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I agree with the general premise that if Stubbs can bat like a league average CF (or even slightly below average), he's going to be a very valuable player.

Is he going to be able to do that? I'm a little skeptical, but hopeful. IMO, this is the type of young player you want to take a chance on. His defense is good enough that if he struggles with the bat, he's not going to drag down the entire team. That was one of my huge problems with Larson getting so much playing time. His glove was so horrible that when he failed to hit, he was contributing absolutley nothing. At least Stubs will contribute on defense, even if he struggles adjusting to ML pitching on offense.

I'm comfortable with the notion that Stubbs could be a league average player in 2010. I'm not nearly as comfortable with the notion that he will be a league average bat in 2010.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by jojo

I'm comfortable with the notion that Stubbs could be a league average player in 2010. I'm not nearly as comfortable with the notion that he will be a league average bat in 2010.

I'm comfortable with Stubbs being a league average bat for his position in 2010, but I hold no greater expectations than that. I do think he can repeat a 750/760 OPS. If he does, he stands the chance of being as good as this article suggests. If not, as you said, at worst we're probably talking about an overall average centerfielder until the bat does improve.

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by nate

I think combining a Dunn and Stubbs thread would be very Redszoney.

So we can over-emphasize Dunn's bad defense and under-emphasize his bat, while we can over-emphasize a "what could be" with Stubbs's bat, while potentially over-emphasizing his great defense (although at this point, I'm excited to see what this kid can do defensively over a full season... can he be Franklin Guitierrez?).

I'm sure the thread would turn into Stubbs being way better than Dunn b/c of the defense.

[TheNext44]

Right now, in 2010, it's highly doubtful Stubbs will be as productive as Votto or even Dunn, all things considered. His K rate is still too high, and there is no way he continues his power surge over a whole season. I would be thrilled if Stubbs ends up as league average CF over the course of his first full season.

But I do think that there is a better than average chance that Stubbs eventually, two or three years down the road, turns into a 4+ win player, similar to Votto. He has the physical tools, and he has progressed, if very slowly, throughout his minor league career.

I could seem him have a similar career as Jayson Werth. A few years figuring out what type of hitter he will be, then developing into All-Star. Stubbs has the advantage that his defense will keep him playing everyday, so he should progress just a bit faster that Werth.

Stubbs could still stay where he is now, but I like his chances of getting better.

[RedsManRick]

I still like Curtis Granderson as a comp for Stubbs. I think Stubbs will trade some of those homers for doubles and triples, but would not at all be surprised to see him maintain something like a .270/.340/.440 line. I think he's got a bit more power than Gutierrez. In any event, he only needs to put up something like a .700 OPS to be a solid addition to the team thanks to the quality of his defense.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I still like Curtis Granderson as a comp for Stubbs. I think Stubbs will trade some of those homers for doubles and triples, but would not at all be surprised to see him maintain something like a .270/.340/.440 line. I think he's got a bit more power than Gutierrez. In any event, he only needs to put up something like a .700 OPS to be a solid addition to the team thanks to the quality of his defense.

I'd like to see better than .700 OPS. This team needs bats. Defense is great, especially in CF, but I wouldn't be happy with him providing a .275/.350/.350 line.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I still like Curtis Granderson as a comp for Stubbs. I think Stubbs will trade some of those homers for doubles and triples, but would not at all be surprised to see him maintain something like a .270/.340/.440 line. I think he's got a bit more power than Gutierrez. In any event, he only needs to put up something like a .700 OPS to be a solid addition to the team thanks to the quality of his defense.

I'd argue that Franklin Gutierrez has shown significantly more power than Stubbs.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by jojo

I'd argue that Franklin Gutierrez has shown significantly more power than Stubbs.

Shown, yes; that's what I said "I think he's got," meaning that he has the inherent ability -- not that he's produced it as of yet. Though I had admittedly forgotten how similar Gutierrez's body type is to Stubbs. Both are tall, lanky guys who should add power as they age. In any event, I think Stubbs will prove to be a 20 HR guy in his prime.

EDabbs, I'd like to see an OPS significantly north of .700 too. But we don't "need bats" any more or than we "need run prenvention". Improvement in our run differential counts regardless of which side of the ledger it's on. A .700 OPS and his defense would represent a substantial improvement in our run differential over what we got from CF in 2009.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Shown, yes; that's what I said "I think he's got," meaning that he has the inherent ability -- not that he's produced it as of yet. Though I had admittedly forgotten how similar Gutierrez's body type is to Stubbs. Both are tall, lanky guys who should add power as they age. In any event, I think Stubbs will prove to be a 20 HR guy in his prime.

EDabbs, I'd like to see an OPS significantly north of .700 too. But we don't "need bats" any more or than we "need run prenvention". Improvement in our run differential counts regardless of which side of the ledger it's on. A .700 OPS and his defense would represent a substantial improvement in our run differential over what we got from CF in 2009.

The Reds have built a pretty darn good "run prevention" club. Rolen, Phillips, Bruce, Stubbs, and Hanigan are all well above average defensive players. You can throw Votto into the mix as an above average defender and depending on which direction the SS position goes it could be Cozart of Janish who are above average. The only position that is questionable defensively is LF and it all depends on who plays there.

To be honest I think bats, especially in the OBP area, are the primary need of this club.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

The Reds have built a pretty darn good "run prevention" club. Rolen, Phillips, Bruce, Stubbs, and Hanigan are all well above average defensive players. You can throw Votto into the mix as an above average defender and depending on which direction the SS position goes it could be Cozart of Janish who are above average. The only position that is questionable defensively is LF and it all depends on who plays there.

To be honest I think bats, especially in the OBP area, are the primary need of this club.

Again, "need" is the wrong word here. Adding offense may be the most cost-effective strategy to improve our run differential at the moment. As you point out, there is less room for us to improve the team through defense. But the presence of those plus defenders elsewhere and relatively poor offense elsewhere in the lineup doesn't change the value of the defense Stubbs provides. His additional runs prevented count just the same as if his teammates were poor defenders and good hitters.

There are not really diminishing returns so long as that guy is going to get playing time. If you're a 700 RS/ 700 RA team, it doesn't matter if you get to 720/700 or 700/680. Now, strategically speaking, in terms of how you use your resources to improve that differential, there are limits to how much you can improve on either side of the ball - but that's because there are only 9 guys on the field at any one time. If you're adding a guy who is one of those 9, the effect is the same.

So long as your goal is winning and not just winning in a particular way, runs are runs, and it doesn't really matter whether you're improving your offense or your defense. It's not where you're improving; it's that you're improving.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Again, "need" is the wrong word here. Adding offense may be the most cost-effective strategy to improve our run differential at the moment. As you point out, there is less room for us to improve the team through defense. But the presence of those plus defenders elsewhere and relatively poor offense elsewhere in the lineup doesn't change the value of the defense Stubbs provides. His additional runs prevented count just the same as if his teammates were poor defenders and good hitters.

There are not really diminishing returns so long as that guy is going to get playing time. If you're a 700 RS/ 700 RA team, it doesn't matter if you get to 720/700 or 700/680. Now, strategically speaking, in terms of how you use your resources to improve that differential, there are limits to how much you can improve on either side of the ball - but that's because there are only 9 guys on the field at any one time. If you're adding a guy who is one of those 9, the effect is the same.

So long as your goal is winning and not just winning in a particular way, runs are runs, and it doesn't really matter whether you're improving your offense or your defense. It's not where you're improving; it's that you're improving.

In the macro that's true but in the micro you cannot forget to score runs. If you had 8 Paul Janish's around the diamond you are gonna lose more (probably a lot more) than you win. With a pretty good run preventing unit. True or not?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Mario-Rijo

In the macro that's true but in the micro you cannot forget to score runs. If you had 8 Paul Janish's around the diamond you are gonna lose more (probably a lot more) than you win. With a pretty good run preventing unit. True or not?

Absolutely, and that will show up in your differential. Getting 20 runs better at prevention at the cost of 20 runs of offense accomplishes nothing. But even if your offense sucks, you benefit more from improving your defense by an additional 20 runs than by improving your offense by 10. It's the change in the differential that matters, not which side you're affecting.

The point is that you can never just focus on or the other. For position players, they always both count.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

Absolutely, and that will show up in your differential. Getting 20 runs better at prevention at the cost of 20 runs of offense accomplishes nothing. But even if your offense sucks, you benefit more from improving your defense by an additional 20 runs than by improving your offense by 10. It's the change in the differential that matters, not which side you're affecting.

The point is that you can never just focus on or the other. For position players, they always both count.

This is the key distinction that gets lost in the shuffle. People that enjoy UZR use the run differential. The common reply is that you can't sacrifice too much offense, which is true. But that's never been the crux of the issue.

The point you are making, Jojo makes, I would make, etc., is that trading 20 runs scored for 20 runs prevented is a net break-even. However, while you continue to lose offense, if you could, hypothetically, trade 5 runs scored for 10 runs prevented with every player in your lineup, this is better than improving your offense by two runs over your defense.

Hence, it's the overall differential that matters, and not the dynamic of how you get there. Clearly you need some competent hitters at some point, so that's not to say a team would be advised at comprising a lineup completely of hit-less, field-more players. But sometimes there's too much an emphasis at getting a bat just to get a bat, and forget that you might be doing yourself a disservice by gaining those runs scored at the expense of runs prevented.