Taking a walk from A to AAA

[JGalt73]

BP ran an article today on the A's philosophy of preaching OBP from the minor leagues up. In it they present a very interesting graph looking at minor league K and BB rates for all combined minor league affiliates from 03-05. Look to the right for the A's and the FAR LEFT for our beloved Cubs.

 

http://baseballprospectus.com/news/images/4924_01.gif

 

The bottom line is that the A's covet OBP as a skill in the draft and nuture it from A-ball on up. The Red Sox have recently adopted a similar mantra throughout the minor leagues. I'd love to see the Cubs move that direction.

[goonys evil twin]

It's something like this that shows my biggest problem with the Cubs. They aren't just different from a patient team, they are the extreme opposite. I'm not asking them to be Oakland, I'm just asking them to take on some of their traits.

 

This is not at all surprising when you've seen, read or heard anything about the Cubs in recent years. They don't just fail to stress the value of the walk, they downplay it significantly by stressing an overly aggressive approach.

[Guest]

We strike out less. Huzzah.

[BWcubs21]

wow thats pretty interesting, shows you why we aren't being overally productive in terms of position players making it in the pro's.

[series65cubsfan]

We strike out less. Huzzah.

 

LOL, good one Tim.

[Monco]

We strike out less. Huzzah.

Thats because the stat counts every minor leaguer.The A's try to avoid keeping the guy who strikes out 120 times.20 homers and at least 120K's, the Cubs got a spot for you.

[Guest]

We strike out less. Huzzah.

I believe that's a good thing when evaluating prospects. One of the most important traits for a young player, I think, is a good concept of the strike zone. Knowing what pitches you can hit (and hit well) is more than half the battle. A player with a good grasp of such things will make more contact and therefore strikeout less.

 

On the flip side, of course, he should also be more selective and get more walks. Because the Cubs' walk rate is so low, it's more likely that our low K rate is a byproduct of a swing early, swing often attitude. I wonder how much impact a shift in the organizational attitude would have on our K/BB rate. Could we get a significant increase in walks without a corresponding increase in strikeouts?

[SouthSideRyan]

We strike out less. Huzzah.

Thats because the stat counts every minor leaguer.The A's try to avoid keeping the guy who strikes out 120 times.20 homers and at least 120K's, the Cubs got a spot for you.

 

I have no clue what this means. I'd like to see the study broken down more to top 20/50 prospects or at least remove organizational players, though I suspect that would make our #s look even worse.

[UK1679666180]

If you look at it from a BA top 10 perspective.

 

The Cubs have 5 position prospects in the 10, 4 are from HS and Latin America (Pie, Cedeno, Harvey, and Dopirak) and 1 from college (Patterson).

 

Pie, Cedeno, Harvey, and Dopirak avg'd 34 BBs per 500 ABs. Patterson avg'd 64 BBs per 500ABs

 

Oakland had 2 HS/Latin prospects (Barton/Herrera) and 4 College prospects in their top 10 (Pennington, Either, Buck, Melillo).

 

Barton and Herrera avg'd 80.5 BBs per 500Ks and Pennington, Buck, Either, Melillo avg'd 67.25 Bbs per 500ABs.

 

In total, Cubs prospects avg'd 40BBs per 500ABs and Oak. prospects avg'd 72 BBs

Edited April 2, 2006 by UK

[UK1679666180]

As far as strikeouts of each team. Cubs prospects avg'd 107 Ks per 500ABs and Oakland avg'd 96 Ks per 500ABs.

[TXCubsFan]

Seems to me that OAK and TEX are outliers, with the Cubs bunched with a large number of teams (55-60 range). We aren't far and away the worst team when it comes to taking BBs.

 

The Cubs also pick high ceiling HS guys (Harvey, Dopirak, CPatt, Pie) who often strike out often and don't walk as much. As Tim mentioned in another thread, with a $100 million payroll, the Cubs should be making high risk / high reward draft picks because the Cubs can buy average / better than average players. Oakland has a different drafting philosophy, in part because the team works with a smaller budget.

[CubinNY]

Seems to me that OAK and TEX are outliers, with the Cubs bunched with a large number of teams (55-60 range). We aren't far and away the worst team when it comes to taking BBs.

 

The Cubs also pick high ceiling HS guys (Harvey, Dopirak, CPatt, Pie) who often strike out often and don't walk as much. As Tim mentioned in another thread, with a $100 million payroll, the Cubs should be making high risk / high reward draft picks because the Cubs can buy average / better than average players. Oakland has a different drafting philosophy, in part because the team works with a smaller budget.

 

 

Both Cin and Oak are outliers. That doesn't change the facts. But your points are well taken. Nevertheless being a big market/big dollar team is no excuse for poor draft philosphy and poor player development.

 

And I think it is quite clear the Cubs "philosophy" translates to wasted investments and a poor record.

Edited April 2, 2006 by CubinNY

[Monco]

We strike out less. Huzzah.

Thats because the stat counts every minor leaguer.The A's try to avoid keeping the guy who strikes out 120 times.20 homers and at least 120K's, the Cubs got a spot for you.

 

I have no clue what this means. I'd like to see the study broken down more to top 20/50 prospects or at least remove organizational players, though I suspect that would make our #s look even worse.

Look at last year with Patterson,Burnitz, and Lee.This year with Jones.The Cubs don't seem to worry about hitters striking out.It s seemed like that about as long as I can remember.Seems to be changing this year.They are going more for speed and less for power.

[KingKongvs.Godzilla]

Both Cin and Oak are outliers. That doesn't change the facts. But your points are well taken. Nevertheless neing a big market/big dollar team is no excuse for poor draft philosphy and poor player development.

 

And I think it is quite clear the Cubs "philosophy" translates to wasted investments and a poor record.

 

Exactly. Just because we have the money to spend doesn't mean we have to go out and get a Ryan Harvey-esque project with our first pick. I mean, why would they want to if they see their results over the past few years?

 

The fact of the matter is that our player development is way too weak for us to be drafting so many projects. Or worse, drafting Grant Johnson, a pitcher who had just come off a major shoulder injury, with our first pick when we probably could have went and drafted him later. There were bats available (EME who the Giants took a few picks after), there were younger, uninjured pitchers with higher cielings line Gaby Hernandez and Wade Davis available...

 

We just have not drafted well since 2002 and it's starting to catch up.

[CubsWin]

I agree that the Cubs may help themselves by successfully directing their hitters to be more patient and have an improved eye at the plate. I also agree that Cubs prospects will fail slightly more often because they tend to be high ceiling type guys. But I also think it is important to include that if they are indeed high ceiling prospects then when they hit, they will hit in a big way. We just haven't seen one fulfill his potential in a while and we are frustrated.

[CubsWin]

It is also important to note that the Cubs are closely bunched together with several other teams that we generally do not think of in the same way.

 

For instance, the Cardinals, the Indians, the Brewers, the Yankees, the White Sox, the Phillies, the Dodgers and the Astros are all within a 3-4 walks per 600 ABs of each other. They also are similar in strikeouts per 600 ABs, too. So unless we are equally willing to condemn the philosophies of those teams as well (and some may be), then none of the criticisms in this thread hold much water.

[jjgman21]

Seems to me that OAK and TEX are outliers, with the Cubs bunched with a large number of teams (55-60 range). We aren't far and away the worst team when it comes to taking BBs.

 

The Cubs also pick high ceiling HS guys (Harvey, Dopirak, CPatt, Pie) who often strike out often and don't walk as much. As Tim mentioned in another thread, with a $100 million payroll, the Cubs should be making high risk / high reward draft picks because the Cubs can buy average / better than average players. Oakland has a different drafting philosophy, in part because the team works with a smaller budget.

 

 

Both Cin and Oak are outliers. That doesn't change the facts. But your points are well taken. Nevertheless being a big market/big dollar team is no excuse for poor draft philosphy and poor player development.

 

And I think it is quite clear the Cubs "philosophy" translates to wasted investments and a poor record.

 

I very much wish the Cubs would adopt a philosophy of mixing in more low risk draft picks and plate discipline/patience for hitters, but I think what is left out in the discussion of draft philisophy is the other part of the Cubs draft philisophy, which is "draft lots and lots and lots of pitching." when 7 or 8 of your top 10 draft picks are pitchers year after year, it's not surprising that the organization as a whole lacks patient, disciplined hitters because the talent pool of your hitters is not going to be at the same level as alot of other organizations who draft more position players in the early rounds.

 

I think there are simply too many variables to take this study with anything but a grain of salt, with the exception of the A's

[UK1679666180]

It is also important to note that the Cubs are closely bunched together with several other teams that we generally do not think of in the same way.

 

For instance, the Cardinals, the Indians, the Brewers, the Yankees, the White Sox, the Phillies, the Dodgers and the Astros are all within a 3-4 walks per 600 ABs of each other. They also are similar in strikeouts per 600 ABs, too. So unless we are equally willing to condemn the philosophies of those teams as well (and some may be), then none of the criticisms in this thread hold much water.

 

Who cares about team perception...

 

At the ML level, they finished 28th with 419BBs while the avg. team finished with 507 BBs.

 

So far thru the 1st 15 teams I've done...

 

The top 4 or the position prospect in the top 10 in each system (according to BA)

 

Cubs prospects have avg'd 40BBs per 500ABs. The only system that was worse was LAA with 34BBs per 500.

 

The avg. team has avg'd 55 BBs, while the Cubs have avg'd 40. That's a huge difference. Teams like ATL with more HS prospects who are just as toolsy as the Cubs have avg'd 65BBs per 500ABs.

[CubsWin]

It is also important to note that the Cubs are closely bunched together with several other teams that we generally do not think of in the same way.

 

For instance, the Cardinals, the Indians, the Brewers, the Yankees, the White Sox, the Phillies, the Dodgers and the Astros are all within a 3-4 walks per 600 ABs of each other. They also are similar in strikeouts per 600 ABs, too. So unless we are equally willing to condemn the philosophies of those teams as well (and some may be), then none of the criticisms in this thread hold much water.

 

Who cares about team perception...

 

At the ML level, they finished 28th with 419BBs while the avg. team finished with 507 BBs.

 

So far thru the 1st 15 teams I've done...

 

The top 4 or the position prospect in the top 10 in each system (according to BA)

 

Cubs prospects have avg'd 40BBs per 500ABs. The only system that was worse was LAA with 34BBs per 500.

 

The avg. team has avg'd 55 BBs, while the Cubs have avg'd 40. That's a huge difference. Teams like ATL with more HS prospects who are just as toolsy as the Cubs have avg'd 65BBs per 500ABs.

When did I mention "team perception"? I'm not sure I even know what that is.

 

As far as your top 4 position prospect research, it is problematic in that the sample size is woefully small. For instance, if you had done your research using someone else's top 4 position prospects or included more than just the top 4, you may have included Brandon Sing which would skew your results quite a bit. The most responsible way to show evidence of an organization wide philosophy is to use the entire organization's stats like the graph in the original post in this thread did.

 

So once again, I'm not saying that the criticisms of the Cubs philosophy are unfair or off base, I'm simply saying that if we are going to criticize the Cubs then we must also criticize the other teams in that same cluster (the Cardinals, the Indians, the Yankees, the Phillies, the White Sox, the Astros, the Brewers, the Dodgers, etc.).

[UK1679666180]

It is also important to note that the Cubs are closely bunched together with several other teams that we generally do not think of in the same way.

 

This is what I mean, why compare the Cubs to the Stros, Sox, Indians, and Dodgers. What does it prove, beyond other teams with prospects that fail to walk often.

 

The reason why you use top 10 prospects is b/c despite the small number, most who make an impact (starter) will come from the top 10 in each organization. The 10-30 range will likely consist of bench players or never make it to the majors.

[CubsWin]

It is also important to note that the Cubs are closely bunched together with several other teams that we generally do not think of in the same way.

 

This is what I mean, why compare the Cubs to the Stros, Sox, Indians, and Dodgers. What does it prove, beyond other teams with prospects that fail to walk often.

It doesn't prove anything. I wasn't trying to prove anything. The only thing I was saying, very simply, is that Cubs are not alone in this area and that if we are going to criticize the Cubs, then we must be prepared to criticize these other organizations, some of which we generally glorify, as well.

 

The reason why you use top 10 prospects is b/c despite the small number, most who make an impact (starter) will come from the top 10 in each organization. The 10-30 range will likely consist of bench players or never make it to the majors.

I understand the reason for using such a small sample size. I said nothing about the choice to do that specific research. The reasoning is sound, but any conclusions you pull are going to be problematic due to the extremely small sample size.

 

Once again, if the Cubs had worse hitting prospects in their top 4 such that Brandon Sing moved up into the Cubs top 4, then your results would be quite different. Anytime, changing one player in your test group dramatically changes the conclusions drawn from your research, you know that the sample size is too small to really be meaningful.

[UK1679666180]

Once again, if the Cubs had worse hitting prospects in their top 4 such that Brandon Sing moved up into the Cubs top 4, then your results would be quite different. Anytime, changing one player in your test group dramatically changes the conclusions drawn from your research, you know that the sample size is too small to really be meaningful.

 

There's a reason why Sing is not a top prospect compared to Harvey, Pie, and Dopirak.

 

But, unlike almost every organization they are poor at drawing BBs which is something that has plagued the Cubs at both the minor league and major league level.

 

Between, my results on the top prospects of every organziation and the one 1st provided, I think it shows a reason to be concerned and is without a doubt an area for improvement.

 

The farm system has been on a decline for quite some time, part of that reason is due to an inability of the elite prospects to draw BBs.

 

It's up to you to ignore it or compare it other organizations, but it's there and is a problem, both in the overall scheme of the farm system and especially with the elite prospects.

[jjgman21]

It is also important to note that the Cubs are closely bunched together with several other teams that we generally do not think of in the same way.

 

This is what I mean, why compare the Cubs to the Stros, Sox, Indians, and Dodgers. What does it prove, beyond other teams with prospects that fail to walk often.

 

The reason why you use top 10 prospects is b/c despite the small number, most who make an impact (starter) will come from the top 10 in each organization. The 10-30 range will likely consist of bench players or never make it to the majors.

 

again, allow me to preface this by stating that I wish the Cubs organization emphasized plate discipline and patience more.

 

I understand what you are saying about the top ten turning into starters, but your methodology is still extremely problematic. for instance, if Murton had about 10 fewer plate appearances, he would be on BA's Cubs top 10 (although that would bump Patterson off the list). also, when projecting future starters, using BA's list is extremely problematic because they so heavily emphasize ceiling. thus, Ryan Harvey makes their list, but he is far from certain to be a starter. as alluded to above, BA excludes guys that take a long time to figure it out, so Sing is excluded. BA also is unkind to players who lost the sparkle they had a couple years ago, so players like Scott Moore don't make it (as another example of this, Dope has another bad year, and he's no longer in this equation). finally, using this methodology skews the numbers when a player or two, ie Harvey and Dope, don't take a walk.

 

in sum, using BA, or plucking any random set of 4 or 5 prospects to prove a point about the overall organization is not an precise enough method. if there is a prospect list out there that ranks in terms of "10 position players who will help within the next two years, starter, platoon or bench, maximum 175 major league plate appearance" the list very well may be

 

 

Murton 33/347

Cedeno 20/245

Pagan 49/516

Pie 16/240

Sing 91/409

Theriot 45/448

Greenberg 56/305

Fontenot 59/379

Soto 48/292

Moore 55/466

 

using those players, instead of focusing on guys that might be complete busts even though they are potential starters or stars, and the Cubs minor league prospects average about 65BBs per 500 ABs.

[CubsWin]

It's up to you to ignore it or compare it other organizations, but it's there and is a problem, both in the overall scheme of the farm system and especially with the elite prospects.

Who is ignoring it? When did I ever say it wasn't a problem?

 

All I said was that your methodology was problematic because the sample size was very small and thus the conclusions you were drawing were open to cross examination to the point where they didn't mean much.

 

I never said I didn't want the Cubs to have better plate discipline. I just said that on an organization wide basis, they weren't the only organization to have this problem. I'm just trying to keep the debate honest and provide some perspective. We can get quite myopically focused on the Cubs and their shortcomings (no all-stars in the OF, not the greatest plate discipline, etc.) on a board like this. Some of the comments start sounding like no self-respecting baseball team or GM would allow these shortcomings. It is at that point that I feel it is necessary to keep the debate honest and provide some perspective and remind people that the Cubs are not the only team with problems like these.

[CubsWin]

There's a reason why Sing is not a top prospect compared to Harvey, Pie, and Dopirak.

Of course there is. No one is saying there isn't. All I was saying was that if the Cubs hadn't recently drafted young toolsy players like Harvey and Dopirak and had an even less talented group of hitters on their prospect list such that Sing was in your sample group, that the walks Brandon Sing gets would greatly skew the results of your research. My point wasn't to say that the Cubs shouldn't improve their plate discipline. My point was to show how, because your sample size is so small, the Cubs could have worse talent (ie not have Harvey or Dopirak) and show remarkably better numbers according to your research. In other words, your research is flawed.

 

But, unlike almost every organization they are poor at drawing BBs which is something that has plagued the Cubs at both the minor league and major league level.

The graph that started this thread shows otherwise, that several other highly respected organizations are also relatively poor at drawing walks. On what evidence are you drawing your conclusion?

 

Between, my results on the top prospects of every organziation and the one 1st provided, I think it shows a reason to be concerned and is without a doubt an area for improvement.

Agreed, it is an area for improvement. The question is are the Cubs actively trying to improve it or is it their organization's instructional philosophy that is causing the problem in the first place?

 

I don't know. I haven't sat in on any of their coaching sessions. But I do remember Cubs AA hitting coach Von Joshua and Cubs Minor League hitting instructor Dave Keller both quoted in an article in which Pie himself said he needed to improve...you guessed it, his plate discipline. If Pie is saying it, it would logically follow that his instructors are saying it as well. But that is far from proof that they are. Short of listening in on a coaching session, that might be the best I can do.