Drew Stubbs: What if?

[_Sir_Charles_]

Has he gone in for an eye test? Sometimes the simple things are the things that get overlooked. Contact lenses or glasses could be a huge difference maker for someone who's having a hard time seeing the ball (getting quick jumps in the OF, or on seeing pitches at the plate). Just food for thought.

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

Has he gone in for an eye test? Sometimes the simple things are the things that get overlooked. Contact lenses or glasses could be a huge difference maker for someone who's having a hard time seeing the ball (getting quick jumps in the OF, or on seeing pitches at the plate). Just food for thought.

Worked for Rick Vaughn.

[Blitz Dorsey]

OMG, I think the OP is Dusty Baker. Stubbs batting second and in CF tonight. Dusty wants to force Stubbs into that role. Glad we're learning from our mistakes. (Nope.)

[RedsManRick]

I'm not sure if people realize this, but Stubbs has struck out less often this year (29.3%) than last year (30.3%) and just a hair more than 2010 (28.8%).

To the extent that his strikeouts are a problem for him in general, that merits conversation. But there's nothing special about his strikeout rate this year. Rather, what's changed is that he's doing a lot less damage when he does make contact -- more ground balls, fewer liners, fewer hits per ball in play and fewer extra base hits.

If Stubbs has altered his approach given the Reds interest in getting him to make more contact, it's only succeeded in him trading hard contact for weak contact.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I'm not sure if people realize this, but Stubbs has struck out less often this year (29.3%) than last year (30.3%) and just a hair more than 2010 (28.8%).

To the extent that his strikeouts are a problem for him in general, that merits conversation. But there's nothing special about his strikeout rate this year. Rather, what's changed is that he's doing a lot less damage when he does make contact -- more ground balls, fewer liners, fewer hits per ball in play and fewer extra base hits.

If Stubbs has altered his approach given the Reds interest in getting him to make more contact, it's only succeeded in him trading hard contact for weak contact.

Yep. Bottom line? He's atrocious.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey

Yep. Bottom line? He's atrocious.

If you think Stubbs is atrocious, what do you think of Wilson Valdez? I know Stubbs isn't exactly lighting the world on fire, but his production is worthy of a roster spot, and many teams would be thrilled to have him at his current salary.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

If you think Stubbs is atrocious, what do you think of Wilson Valdez? I know Stubbs isn't exactly lighting the world on fire, but his production is worthy of a roster spot, and many teams would be thrilled to have him at his current salary.

The Reds aren't pretending Valdez is a starter, at least. Sure, he shouldn't be on the roster, but Stubbs shouldn't be getting 500 plate appearances, either.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

I'm not sure if people realize this, but Stubbs has struck out less often this year (29.3%) than last year (30.3%) and just a hair more than 2010 (28.8%).

To the extent that his strikeouts are a problem for him in general, that merits conversation. But there's nothing special about his strikeout rate this year. Rather, what's changed is that he's doing a lot less damage when he does make contact -- more ground balls, fewer liners, fewer hits per ball in play and fewer extra base hits.

If Stubbs has altered his approach given the Reds interest in getting him to make more contact, it's only succeeded in him trading hard contact for weak contact.

There's no evidence that Stubbs is truly hitting for weaker contact on a larger scale. Sure, his LD% is down again, but it's also about the same as it was in 2010 when he had a pretty nice cup of coffee. And his HR/FB rate is actually up from last year, for whatever it's worth. The bigger issue is that we don't really know how many of those grounders are actually being hit weaker than usual because we don't have the hit F/X data.

He *might* be hitting into weaker contact, but there's not a lot of data to make that assumption, to be honest.

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by Brutus

The Reds aren't pretending Valdez is a starter, at least. Sure, he shouldn't be on the roster, but Stubbs shouldn't be getting 500 plate appearances, either.

That may be true, but wouldn't that mean the team's management is atrocious as opposed to the individual players?

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

That may be true, but wouldn't that mean the team's management is atrocious as opposed to the individual players?

Well, obviously I wouldn't be very wise to call them atrocious. After all, they put together a club that is about to become the first team to clinch a playoff spot in spite of these glaring issues. So not atrocious, no.

I just think they have not exercised very good judgment with these two.

[AtomicDumpling]

Originally Posted by Brutus

There's no evidence that Stubbs is truly hitting for weaker contact on a larger scale. Sure, his LD% is down again, but it's also about the same as it was in 2010 when he had a pretty nice cup of coffee. And his HR/FB rate is actually up from last year, for whatever it's worth. The bigger issue is that we don't really know how many of those grounders are actually being hit weaker than usual because we don't have the hit F/X data.

He *might* be hitting into weaker contact, but there's not a lot of data to make that assumption, to be honest.

Given that his contact rate is the same as always wouldn't the fact that his slugging percentage has plummeted be an indication that he is not hitting the ball as hard as he used to? He is not getting extra base hits because he is not hitting the ball hard enough to get past the outfielders.

His swing is long and slow, which is to be expected from a tall, long-armed, right-handed hitter. Actually I think his swing is good enough to succeed -- not a great swing but adequate. His problem has always been pitch recognition. He takes the good pitches and swings at the bad pitches. Its almost as if he decides whether or not to swing before the pitch is even thrown.

I still think he should forget about the strikeouts. Forget about "making contact and utilizing his speed". He needs to keep it simple and quit trying to hit the ball the other way. Focus on his power instead of his speed. The speed is a bonus rather than his defining skill. He is more valuable as a power hitter who happens to be fast than as a slap-hitting speedster. Stubbs needs to just swing hard at anything that doesn't spin, yank the ball to left field and run like a cheetah. He will never be a star, but he can be a solid contributor if he would just go back to hitting the ball hard again.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

Given that his contact rate is the same as always wouldn't the fact that his slugging percentage has plummeted be an indication that he is not hitting the ball as hard as he used to? He is not getting extra base hits because he is not hitting the ball hard enough to get past the outfielders.

His swing is long and slow, which is to be expected from a tall, long-armed, right-handed hitter. Actually I think his swing is good enough to succeed -- not a great swing but adequate. His problem has always been pitch recognition. He takes the good pitches and swings at the bad pitches. Its almost as if he decides whether or not to swing before the pitch is even thrown.

I still think he should forget about the strikeouts. Forget about "making contact and utilizing his speed". He needs to keep it simple and quit trying to hit the ball the other way. Focus on his power instead of his speed. The speed is a bonus rather than his defining skill. He is more valuable as a power hitter who happens to be fast than as a slap-hitting speedster. Stubbs needs to just swing hard at anything that doesn't spin, yank the ball to left field and run like a cheetah. He will never be a star, but he can be a solid contributor if he would just go back to hitting the ball hard again.

Stubbs' ISO is actually better this year than it was last year. So the power issue isn't really a factor. His ISO last year was .121 and this year it's .131. The only difference is that his raw numbers are down because he has 200 fewer PAs.

His BABIP this year is a lot lower, and some of that might be on account of his LD rate, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily hitting the ball softer.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Brutus

Stubbs' ISO is actually better this year than it was last year. So the power issue isn't really a factor. His ISO last year was .121 and this year it's .131. The only difference is that his raw numbers are down because he has 200 fewer PAs.

His BABIP this year is a lot lower, and some of that might be on account of his LD rate, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily hitting the ball softer.

Both this year and last year are a step down from the decent power production he put up in 2010. The AtomicDumpling has it right IMO: Stubbs pitch recognition will prevent him from ever making consistent contact regardless of what kind of swing he takes. If he really is up there just guessing, I'd say let it rip and capitalize on the times he actually guesses correctly.

[mth123]

Posted this in February

I think 2010 is the best we'll ever see from Drew Stubbs. Hope I'm wrong, but 2011 seems more the norm to me. Its more in line with his upper minor league numbers. Even 2011 Stubbs still has value while he's cheap, but he's arb eligible after 2012.

As for Stubbs and Heisey, I agree they can be on the same roster, but I think its a weak outfield if both of these guys are starting. I like Heisey ok in CF. In LF, I think his bat is light. As an every day player, I see Heisey as a .740 to .770 OPS guy. Fine for CF. Not enough for LF. I see Stubbs in the .650 to .680 range from here on out. He'll mash LHP and it will be enough with his speed and defense to give him a decent run in the major leagues, but I just don't see a star or even a good every day player. I think Ludwick will be the team's 3rd best offensive player in 2012. He's not a world beater, but he'll be a cut above the collection of 6, 7 and 8 hitters who aren't named Votto or Bruce.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showp...5&postcount=65

2012 looks even worse because of a 60 point drop in BABIP. Stubbs Extra Base hit % is about the same as last year (the percentage of his total hits that go for extra bases is actually higher than last year with 30% compared to 27%). Stubbs is actually hitting a HR every 32.1 ABs this year as opposed to every 40.3 AB in 2011. I think last season is the real Drew Stubbs (maybe a little high because of his .343 BABIP in 2011) and the drop in BABIP of .60 points is suppressing his BA/OBP/SLG/OPS across the board. Assuming his speed gets that BABIP back up to the .315 to .320 range, I think that .650 to .680 OPS range will still be about right. He's a bench player who can play against LHP, PR and play defense (but he's not a "great" defender he just looks better out there than a lot of guys). He's never really been a good hitter during his college or minor league days and the expectations of him with high .700s or .800s in the majors is not realistic.

For those looking at 2010, forget it. That's a player who was getting challenged a lot as a relative unknown. Pitchers know how to pitch to him now and I don't think we should ever expect anything approaching 2010 again. 2011 is who he is, but now that he's arb eligible, he doesn't have much value. One thing I'd revise from my post above is that, IMO, one of Stubbs or Heisey needs to go. The team needs to keep one as a part time CF/bench player and move one to make way for a lefty bat who can handle a share of CF and hopefully get on base a little more. I'd give-up some power for more of an on base type and the line-up needs more balance by adding a player who's splits are stronger against RHP.

[lollipopcurve]

2011 is who he is

This kind of statement rarely turns out to be true.