The Corey Patterson Thread

[Jon]

It's pretty widely agreed that he was brought up too soon (a .700 OPS in 367 ABs at AAA before coming up to the big leagues for good), but as I've pointed out before, his 2004 has probably been understated. He finished with a .772 OPS, but it was as high as .821 as late as mid-September. And I'd probably classify his 329 ABs in 2003 better than pretty good. He was 4th in OPS among CFers with more than 300 ABs that year. It was a very good pace.

 

And he doesn't turn 27 until August.

 

In regards to 2003/2004 and 2005, if Clines is to blame for screwing Patterson up in 2005, then is the reason for his success in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004 attributed to his work with Gary Matthews?

I believe he has primarily worked with Clines since Dusty arrived. Of course, it was also certainly tied to Hendry and his love for the Pierre prototype.

 

Well, then it seems like he did a pretty damn good job coaching him in 2003 and 2004 because he made a really huge jump in productivity.

And then they did such a terrible job trying to make him Juan Pierre that they felt the hope was gone and needed to dump him.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It's pretty widely agreed that he was brought up too soon (a .700 OPS in 367 ABs at AAA before coming up to the big leagues for good), but as I've pointed out before, his 2004 has probably been understated. He finished with a .772 OPS, but it was as high as .821 as late as mid-September. And I'd probably classify his 329 ABs in 2003 better than pretty good. He was 4th in OPS among CFers with more than 300 ABs that year. It was a very good pace.

 

And he doesn't turn 27 until August.

 

In regards to 2003/2004 and 2005, if Clines is to blame for screwing Patterson up in 2005, then is the reason for his success in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004 attributed to his work with Gary Matthews?

I believe he has primarily worked with Clines since Dusty arrived. Of course, it was also certainly tied to Hendry and his love for the Pierre prototype.

 

Well, then it seems like he did a pretty damn good job coaching him in 2003 and 2004 because he made a really huge jump in productivity.

 

And yet, they decided to try to convert him into a slap hitter in 2005.

[srbin84]

It's pretty widely agreed that he was brought up too soon (a .700 OPS in 367 ABs at AAA before coming up to the big leagues for good), but as I've pointed out before, his 2004 has probably been understated. He finished with a .772 OPS, but it was as high as .821 as late as mid-September. And I'd probably classify his 329 ABs in 2003 better than pretty good. He was 4th in OPS among CFers with more than 300 ABs that year. It was a very good pace.

 

And he doesn't turn 27 until August.

 

In regards to 2003/2004 and 2005, if Clines is to blame for screwing Patterson up in 2005, then is the reason for his success in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004 attributed to his work with Gary Matthews?

I believe he has primarily worked with Clines since Dusty arrived. Of course, it was also certainly tied to Hendry and his love for the Pierre prototype.

 

Well, then it seems like he did a pretty damn good job coaching him in 2003 and 2004 because he made a really huge jump in productivity.

And then they did such a terrible job trying to make him Juan Pierre that they felt the hope was gone and needed to dump him.

 

Are you aware how significant the bunt single has been to CPatt's numbers this year?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It's pretty widely agreed that he was brought up too soon (a .700 OPS in 367 ABs at AAA before coming up to the big leagues for good), but as I've pointed out before, his 2004 has probably been understated. He finished with a .772 OPS, but it was as high as .821 as late as mid-September. And I'd probably classify his 329 ABs in 2003 better than pretty good. He was 4th in OPS among CFers with more than 300 ABs that year. It was a very good pace.

 

And he doesn't turn 27 until August.

 

In regards to 2003/2004 and 2005, if Clines is to blame for screwing Patterson up in 2005, then is the reason for his success in 2003 and to a lesser extent 2004 attributed to his work with Gary Matthews?

I believe he has primarily worked with Clines since Dusty arrived. Of course, it was also certainly tied to Hendry and his love for the Pierre prototype.

 

Well, then it seems like he did a pretty damn good job coaching him in 2003 and 2004 because he made a really huge jump in productivity.

And then they did such a terrible job trying to make him Juan Pierre that they felt the hope was gone and needed to dump him.

 

Are you aware how significant the bunt single has been to CPatt's numbers this year?

 

How many bunt singles does he have?

 

Obivously, 16 of his hits are doubles, triples and homers and he is slugging .461.

[Jon]

Are you aware how significant the bunt single has been to CPatt's numbers this year?

I'm not aware of a site that keeps track of bunt singles, but considering his walk to strikeout ratio is nearly twice as good as what it was in 2003 and is walking at a career best rate, has the same AB/HR rate as he had in 2003, and is slugging .461, probably not that significant.

[srbin84]

Yeah, I can't find a site for it, but I heard on sports radio last week he had like 14 or 15, leading the league.

[srbin84]

I don't know where that guy got his number, but I count 10, which is still a lot. That's why I find it so ironic people blast the Cubs coaches so much for his failure when he has turned out to be exactly the kind of player they were trying to mold him into.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't know where that guy got his number, but I count 10, which is still a lot. That's why I find it so ironic people blast the Cubs coaches so much for his failure when he has turned out to be exactly the kind of player they were trying to mold him into.

 

Getting bunt hits does not = slap hitter. Corey has been a good bunter in the past and not utilizing that ability at least on occasion would be stupid. As has been backed up with quotes from Elia, they had Patterson work on just hitting line drives, not trying to avoid strikeouts, and slap the ball around on the ground.

[srbin84]

Well, the Cubs worked with him on getting bunt singles (with Vince Coleman and others), and if it wasn't for those 10 hits (and it was at worst 10 for 13 in attempts), his batting average and OBP would be in the toliet.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Well, the Cubs worked with him on getting bunt singles (with Vince Coleman and others), and if it wasn't for those 10 hits (and it was at worst 10 for 13 in attempts), his batting average and OBP would be in the toliet.

 

No one ever had a problem with Corey bunting, as long as it was in conjunction with what the O's are doing with him now, not as some attempt to mold him into the "prototypical leadoff hitter".

 

And you can't simply remove his bunt hits in a vacuum and say he'd be crap without them, not that anyone doesn't want him to bunt anyways.

[srbin84]

Well, the Cubs worked with him on getting bunt singles (with Vince Coleman and others), and if it wasn't for those 10 hits (and it was at worst 10 for 13 in attempts), his batting average and OBP would be in the toliet.

 

No one ever had a problem with Corey bunting, as long as it was in conjunction with what the O's are doing with him now, not as some attempt to mold him into the "prototypical leadoff hitter".

 

And you can't simply remove his bunt hits in a vacuum and say he'd be crap without them, not that anyone doesn't want him to bunt anyways.

 

Fine, his batting average in non bunt hit attempts is about .250, so out of 13 ABs, that's a trade of 10 for 3. That comes out to a .247 batting average and .320 OBP, and you would have to take away some of the steals and runs of course.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And that's exactly what I just said you can't/shouldn't do.

[srbin84]

And that's exactly what I just said you can't/shouldn't do.

 

I know, and that's because this drops a bomb on part of the Patterson arguments, of which we are on opposing sides.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

And that's exactly what I just said you can't/shouldn't do.

 

I know, and that's because this drops a bomb on part of the Patterson arguments, of which we are on opposing sides.

 

Okay, then I'll just see what his numbers are when I take out his outs.

 

Looks like he's sporting a 1.000 OBP, pretty good if you ask me.

 

And for the third time, no one said the bunts were bad. You're bombing an argument that isn't even being made.

Edited June 12, 2006 by Transmogrified Tiger

[BigbadB]

And that's exactly what I just said you can't/shouldn't do.

 

Exactly. You can't assume that every bunt attempt would have been an out if he was swinging away instead.

[srbin84]

And that's exactly what I just said you can't/shouldn't do.

 

Exactly. You can't assume that every bunt attempt would have been an out if he was swinging away instead.

 

I didn't, I gave him the batting average he had in his 165 or so regular ABs, which is 3 hits, 7 less. That's reasonable.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

And that's exactly what I just said you can't/shouldn't do.

 

Exactly. You can't assume that every bunt attempt would have been an out if he was swinging away instead.

 

I didn't, I gave him the batting average he had in his 165 or so regular ABs, which is 3 hits, 7 less. That's reasonable.

 

Then you shouldn't count all the bunt attempts where he was retired. Oh wait, you don't have that information. That makes this subtracting his bunts an improper calculation.

 

And as TT pointed out, that avoids the key point. Corey is a line drive hitter who can drop a bunt down once in a while and beat it out. That's different from what the Cubs tried to do with him (slap and bunt, no line drives). That is a pointless exercise in futility since Corey is a line drive hitter.

[Guest]

Here's what I have for Corey's bunting PAs in 2006, through Saturday's games. (You'll just have to trust me that Corey's ID# is 279913. :P)

 

    retrogid    inning   half    be  bf  et      des
bal200604291         9      1     1   1  SH      279913 out on a sacrifice bunt, pitcher 115216 to second baseman 430946.  150421 to 3rd.  114909 to 2nd.
bal200605091         6      1     1   1  SH      279913 out on a sacrifice bunt, pitcher 425146 to second baseman 408299.  132788 to 2nd.
bal200605091         8      1     1   1  SH      279913 out on a sacrifice bunt, catcher 121358 to first baseman 430828.  407880 to 2nd.
bal200604191         3      1     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to catcher 400121.
tor200604271         4      0     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to first baseman 150167.
bal200604301         3      1     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to catcher 425784.  454994 to 2nd.
bos200605051         2      0     1   1  GO      279913 bunt grounds out to first baseman 425903.
bal200605131         4      1     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to first baseman 137006.
was200605201         2      0     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to pitcher 150393.
sea200605221         2      0     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to pitcher 119469.
ana200605281         7      0     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to pitcher 113898.
bal200606051         5      1     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to second baseman 292294.
bal200606081         4      1     1   1  1B      279913 singles on a bunt ground ball to pitcher 136880. 279913 advances to 3rd, on throwing error by pitcher 136880.
bal200606081         8      1     1   1  FC      279913 ground bunts into a force out, pitcher 150011 to third baseman 136267.  150421 out at 3rd.  132788 to 2nd.  279913 to 1st.
min200606101         4      0     1   1  GO      279913 bunt grounds out, pitcher 400067 to first baseman 408047.

So, it seems that Corey has bunted 15 times this year, reaching safely in nine of those attempts and making outs in the other six, though that includes three sacrifices. This seems to mirror his 2004 production on bunts pretty closely. I'm not going to bother looking up the numbers right now, but I remember that Corey was a spectactularly successful bunter that season as well, reaching safely in something like 60% of his bunt attempts. Corey really looks to be a good bunter, and I have no problems with him laying down the occasional bunt if he's that successful at it. As others have pointed out, though, there's a big difference between laying down the occasional bunt at a high success rate and being a no-power, slap hitter in the mold of Juan Pierre or Alex Sanchez. Neither of those players have the ability to drive the ball out of the park, and it's rare for either of them to even hit it hard enough to spilt a gap. In essence, the best likely outcome when a slap hitter puts a swing on the ball isn't all that different than when he lays down a bunt.

 

Corey, on the other hand, can and does hit with quite a bit of power. Limiting him to bunts and slap hits may raise his average a tad, but it would definitely decrease his power numbers.

[Guest]

Well, the Cubs worked with him on getting bunt singles (with Vince Coleman and others), and if it wasn't for those 10 hits (and it was at worst 10 for 13 in attempts), his batting average and OBP would be in the toliet.

BK can correct me on this if I'm off, but I'm pretty sure that Corey led MLB in batting average on bunt attempts in 2004.

 

-- edit --

 

I knew I should have looked at the next page of posts before I replied to this. :D

[srbin84]

The fact is that bunting is the most important part of Corey's success, with speed coming in a close second. These are also things the Cubs worked extensively on with him when he was here. Quite frankly, he should be bunting twice as much as he is.

[abuck1220]

The fact is that bunting is the most important part of Corey's success

 

wrong.

[srbin84]

The fact is that bunting is the most important part of Corey's success

 

wrong.

 

Take out those bunt hits and his batting average on bunt hit attempts, and you have a bad season, even giving him the couple hits he would have likely got in place.

[Guest]

The fact is that bunting is the most important part of Corey's success

 

wrong.

 

Take out those bunt hits and his batting average on bunt hit attempts, and you have a bad season, even giving him the couple hits he would have likely got in place.

It would also be bad if you replaced most of his 16 XBH with a few extra bunts or slap-hit singles. Laying down a few bunts is a part of Corey's game, and is one of the few things he's always done well. What he's been less consistent with has been what he does when he swings the bat, and so far in Baltimore he's doing a better job of that than he was in his time with the Cubs.

[srbin84]

The fact is that bunting is the most important part of Corey's success

 

wrong.

 

Take out those bunt hits and his batting average on bunt hit attempts, and you have a bad season, even giving him the couple hits he would have likely got in place.

It would also be bad if you replaced most of his 16 XBH with a few extra bunts or slap-hit singles. Laying down a few bunts is a part of Corey's game, and is one of the few things he's always done well. What he's been less consistent with has been what he does when he swings the bat, and so far in Baltimore he's doing a better job of that than he was in his time with the Cubs.

 

Only slightly then. We'll go with your 9 for 12.

 

Patterson's numbers when he is not attempting to bunt for a hit:

 

166 AB .253 BA .307 OBP .440 SLG

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Patterson's numbers when he doesn't bat in an inning:

 

0 AB .000 BA .000 OBP .000 SLG