Do we have any position players worth a darn?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

He missed some games to injury (back, I think), that's why his AB aren't higher. I suppose it's also possible that they justtook hiim out for a while to try to clear his slump, or to make some changes in his swing, I don't know.

 

Didn't Harvey tear his ACL last year and then have knee/hamstring problems in spring training this year?

 

He tore his ACL in his senior year of HS.

[snoodmonger]

*Harvey: Long shot. Very rare for a guy with such extreme K/BB problems to ever solve that. Usually is a manifestation of some fundamental, uncorrectable problem. Very unlikely that he ever turns the corner and becomes good. Still, recent hitting is refreshing, and very rare things sometimes happen.

 

So this is a more general question, but it seems like a decent place to ask it. Can plate discipline really be taught to players at the minor league level and up? My brother believes players are too ingrained in their approach by the time they reach professional baseball (minors on up) to undergo radical change.

 

I don't follow minor league baseball enough to know if low OBP guys commonly learn to take walks, or if that's a rarity.

[Outshined_One]

*Harvey: Long shot. Very rare for a guy with such extreme K/BB problems to ever solve that. Usually is a manifestation of some fundamental, uncorrectable problem. Very unlikely that he ever turns the corner and becomes good. Still, recent hitting is refreshing, and very rare things sometimes happen.

 

So this is a more general question, but it seems like a decent place to ask it. Can plate discipline really be taught to players at the minor league level and up? My brother believes players are too ingrained in their approach by the time they reach professional baseball (minors on up) to undergo radical change.

 

I don't follow minor league baseball enough to know if low OBP guys commonly learn to take walks, or if that's a rarity.

 

Sammy Sosa was one of the few guys who was able to really change his profile to the point where he became a consistent OBP threat.

 

It's incredibly hard to change a guy's profile to the point of turning him into a high OBP player. Minor adjustments can be made, but I think it would just require re-teaching a guy everything he's ever known and learned about hitting to get to that point.

 

Then again, I think it would easily be possible to turn a High OBP guy into a Low OBP guy given the proper adjustments.

[texascub]

*Harvey: Long shot. Very rare for a guy with such extreme K/BB problems to ever solve that. Usually is a manifestation of some fundamental, uncorrectable problem. Very unlikely that he ever turns the corner and becomes good. Still, recent hitting is refreshing, and very rare things sometimes happen.

 

So this is a more general question, but it seems like a decent place to ask it. Can plate discipline really be taught to players at the minor league level and up? My brother believes players are too ingrained in their approach by the time they reach professional baseball (minors on up) to undergo radical change.

 

I don't follow minor league baseball enough to know if low OBP guys commonly learn to take walks, or if that's a rarity.

 

If it's a high school player I think that his discipline and judgement can be changed if the team jumps on the issue rather quickly. I believe that we had a good chance at changing Harvey, but the Cubs were slow and lazy to approach the problem and it only became more engrained in him. At this point I highly doubt anything will change barring a major, major change in organizational philosophy and coaching.

[CubsWin]

Harvey with another multi-hit game tonight. And so far no Ks.

 

For those that think he is just terrible and simply sucks, they should ask themselves this question. Harvey started out the year terribly and over his last 100 ABs he is hitting near .400 and has raised his average on the year to around .250. Had he started hitting just below .400 for the first month and a half and then slumped to where he was now around .250, would we perceive him any differently?

 

Clearly, anyone who is intellectually honest will answer yes. Anyone who watches a player's batting average hold in the high .300s for a long time (and OPS sit over 1.000) and then drop into a very mediocre range will perceive his ability/worth differently than if they see his average hang around the Mendoza line for a long time and then later climb to around .250. The perception is vastly different, but the reality isn't. Its simply a matter of timing.

 

Though the fan will likely perceive the player who starts out hot and then slumps as better than the one who starts out cold. I would much rather have the latter, especially if the player is a young minor leaguer. Neither result is that good, either way he is a .250 hitter on the year at the moment, but the latter at least gives us reason to believe that something has clicked for Ryan Harvey.

 

Too many fans look at a player's stats and think that it sums up who he is. Stats are simply a measure of where the player has been, and especially in the case of young, highly talented athletes like Harvey, stats are not a measure of where he is destined to go. An indicator? Sure. His destiny? Hardly.

 

We'll just have to wait and see. Unless, of course, you're convinced that there is no possibility of seeing him do anything other than suck for the rest of his career. I guess those of you have only to hope that the Cubs try him as a pitcher.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think someone who was intellectually honest would notice that Harvey's hot streak is tied directly to his batting average, and that even though he's played well there's no indication that he's turned any corner for what ails him, which is plate discipline. If Harvey had started the year hitting .400/.440 with nearly 7 times as many K's as walks, there would've been plenty people talking about the inevitability of his numbers taking a severe dive.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I think someone who was intellectually honest would notice that Harvey's hot streak is tied directly to his batting average, and that even though he's played well there's no indication that he's turned any corner for what ails him, which is plate discipline. If Harvey had started the year hitting .400/.440 with nearly 7 times as many K's as walks, there would've been plenty people talking about the inevitability of his numbers taking a severe dive.

 

Thank you.

 

Although, plate discipline wasn't his only problem this season.

[UBlink]

I think someone who was intellectually honest would notice that Harvey's hot streak is tied directly to his batting average, and that even though he's played well there's no indication that he's turned any corner for what ails him, which is plate discipline. If Harvey had started the year hitting .400/.440 with nearly 7 times as many K's as walks, there would've been plenty people talking about the inevitability of his numbers taking a severe dive.

 

Thank you.

 

Although, plate discipline wasn't his only problem this season.

 

For August through Aug 6 his BABIP is .529. Somehow I don't think that's sustainable.

[texascub]

I think someone who was intellectually honest would notice that Harvey's hot streak is tied directly to his batting average, and that even though he's played well there's no indication that he's turned any corner for what ails him, which is plate discipline. If Harvey had started the year hitting .400/.440 with nearly 7 times as many K's as walks, there would've been plenty people talking about the inevitability of his numbers taking a severe dive.

 

His hot streak can be tied to an incredibly high BABIP too:

 

BABIP By Month-

April .184

May .217

June .333

July .351

August .529 (through the 6th)

 

Somehow his overal BABIP is only .292, but when those numbers by month come back down to earth I think his production will plunge. He also hits alot more flyballs than linedrives which will catch up to him IMO when he starts playing against better fielding players.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I think someone who was intellectually honest would notice that Harvey's hot streak is tied directly to his batting average, and that even though he's played well there's no indication that he's turned any corner for what ails him, which is plate discipline. If Harvey had started the year hitting .400/.440 with nearly 7 times as many K's as walks, there would've been plenty people talking about the inevitability of his numbers taking a severe dive.

 

His hot streak can be tied to an incredibly high BABIP too:

 

BABIP By Month-

April .184

May .217

June .333

July .351

August .529 (through the 6th)

 

Somehow his overal BABIP is only .292, but when those numbers by month come back down to earth I think his production will plunge. He also hits alot more flyballs than linedrives which will catch up to him IMO when he starts playing against better fielding players.

 

Agreed, that's part of what I was referencing when I wast talking about his hot streak being batting average driven.

[texascub]

I think someone who was intellectually honest would notice that Harvey's hot streak is tied directly to his batting average, and that even though he's played well there's no indication that he's turned any corner for what ails him, which is plate discipline. If Harvey had started the year hitting .400/.440 with nearly 7 times as many K's as walks, there would've been plenty people talking about the inevitability of his numbers taking a severe dive.

 

Thank you.

 

Although, plate discipline wasn't his only problem this season.

 

For August through Aug 6 his BABIP is .529. Somehow I don't think that's sustainable.

 

How dare you steal my thoughts and post them faster than I can? :lol:

[craig]

See, I'm much higher on Patterson than this for a number of reasons.

 

-Ks are meaningless when evaluating a hitter's future success. I've finally come around on this point and it took a member of the Sabr Society to beat me over the head with a number of studies in order to get here. The strikeout is just another out, nothing more, nothing less. BB/K is not a good indicator of a guy's plate discipline. This is why I've been harping on IsoD quite a bit lately.

 

-He has a very healthy LD% (~19.23%), especially against RHPs (~21.6%). When he makes contact, he's getting a good number of line drives, which will do wonders for his ability to hit for extra bases and possibly even HRs as he fills out. I like that.

 

-His IsoD is currently at .069, which is a tick above average and fairly reasonable. Granted, he's not Adam Dunn or Barry Bonds at the plate, but he draws a reasonable enough number of walks to make me think he has a clue at the plate, unlike a number of other guys in this organization.

 

-His SB% is 77%, which is pretty good for some one down in the minor leagues. When he steals, there's a pretty good chance he won't run himself into an out. He's just above the 75% mark, which strikes me as positive.

 

Bottom line is, his August and July have hurt his batting average, but he's been decidedly unlucky during those stretches (.288 BABIP in July, .111 BABIP in August). His numbers are pretty much in line with BABIP for the season and it's not like he's been striking out more.

 

Trust me on this one; he'll be a good addition to this team in 2007 or 2008. :D

 

I disagree, on several points.

 

1. Eric is 23 and short. How likely is it that he's going to "fill out" and become a power hitter? It's not like Rundle or Colvin or something. And I'm a believer that scouting helps to picture a guy. No scouts have talked up or projected much increase in power for Eric.

 

2. There are twenty 75%/40SB guys in AA for every one in the majors. Catchers are better. Guys do get a little heavier and slow down. (In fact, filling out for power and staying fast for SB are routinely contradictory.) Guys who batted leadoff in minors often bat 7th or 8th in majors where they don't run as much.

 

3. OK, the main point is the K's. K's are not meaningless. They are, as you stated, another out. Outs are bad for OBP and for batting average, which is the primary component of OBP. Lets assume that Eric is able to sustain a 0.060 IsoD, which is about in line with present. (Most guys IsoD's drop in majors versus AA, but lets assume he can hold that.)

 

If he bats .300, he's an elite .360 OBP guy, a premium leadoff, might make Furcal money. If he bats .280, at .340 OBP with decent speed/defense/power he's a nice, solid starting 2B. Might bat 2nd, or 7th, maybe even leadoff on some teams. Good support player. If he hits .260, a .320 OBP makes him a sub, or an AAAA guy, or at best a liability starter.

 

BA depends on BABIP (hits and outs in play) and BABNIP (batting average on balls not in play), which consists of K's and HR's. Eric's BABNIP is currently sub-.100, so his composite BA is much depressed from his BABIP.

 

Supose he improves his BABNIP to .100, and it comprises 20% of his AB. With a very good BABIP of .310, he's still only a .260 hitter (this year's situation). If he htis a knockout .330 BABIP, then he'd hit .280, a decent starter. To be a premium .300/.360OBP guy, he'll need to hit a HOF-ish .350 BABIP. (A coupple of players in history have sustained that, but not many).

 

So, seems to me having such a bad BABNIP is a real problem for him.

 

There are two ways to solve the BABNIP problem. K less, or HR more, or both!

 

A lot of good hitter have plenty of K's. That's not a problem... when the guy hits HR's. Take a dude like Harvey. If he K's 160 times, that's not necessarily a problem.... if he hits 40 HR's. Then his BABNIP would be .200. If his BABIP is .310, his composite average could be .273, which wouldn't be bad for a top-fielding 40-HR hitter. (Especially if he had a decent IsoD, which of course isn't going to happen).

 

But if you K 160 times and HR only 10 times, then a .310 BABIP gets you only to .238. So, I think Eric's K-rate is not a problem, if either you can count on him BABIPing in the .330-.350 range (good luck) or if he can hit 15-25 HR's (not likely, IMO).

 

.But if he can't BABIP that high or HR that often, he's either not a very good prospect, or else he should reduce his K-rate. A lousy BABNIP doesn't depress the composite average as much if you are BABNIP'ing 10% of your AB rather than 20%, for example. (That's why Pierre can sustain a decent average despite a lousy BABNIP; the BABNIP volume is just too small).

 

One other personal view on K's: I don't mind K's at the big-league level, if the guy has already shown he has enoughproduction during his non-K AB's. If his average and power and OBP are fine with the K's included, then the guy is fine.

 

But, more minor leaguers, I feel differently. I think K's routinely get worse in majors versus minors. And that high K-rates are a scouting red-flag, for holes in the swing (in the strike zone) or bad pitch recognition (swinging at bad balls). Those holes are worse exposed by big-league pitchers.

 

I think you are looking at line-drive percentage to get a read on quality of swing; I think high K's is also an indicator of swing quality, and a negative one.

 

So, I think Eric's K's in the absence of HR power are a serious BA/OBP-depresser, plus a scouting red flag for his ability to handle even better pitching.

[Outshined_One]

I think you're missing the point on Ks, however.

 

Strikeouts are NOT indicative of plate discipline or patience. If we treat them the same as any other out (which I do), then a strikeout has the same predictive power as a groundout. Strikeouts rarely have any predictive power regarding a guy's potential success in the major leagues. Asking a guy to decrease his Ks could easily produce similar results to Neifi Perez and Juan Pierre. K'ing less does not indicate a player's future success.

 

Moreover, there are plenty of guys in the minors who K a lot and still have found success because of the number of walks they take. As long as you can walk at a reasonable rate, what the heck does it matter if all of your outs come from Ks? If you want a better indicator of why guys with high K rates seemingly flame out more often than those who do not can be traced right back to their IsoD. The reason why I'm so down on Ryan Harvey is because his BB rate is absolutely abysmal; not because he strikes out so often.

 

This is why IsoD is so important in projecting a guy down the line. If a guy shows the ability to take walks on a regular basis, then it's clear he has some semblance of a clue at the plate. Eric Patterson, in my mind, has put up a respectable IsoD (along with a few other stats) that shows he has good pitch recognition skills at a level with relatively advanced pitching. We've seen plenty of pitchers in recent years come straight from AA and succeed in the major leagues. He's faced plenty of pitchers who are good enough to come up to the majors and succeed during his time there.

 

To me, it's really hard to try to expect some level of consistency out of stats that are so heavily tied into batting average, which I believe we both agree is not something that's easy to predict as a prospect advances through the minors. Cripes, look at the studies on the career numbers of BABIP regarding pitchers. Basically, only the really elite guys have been able to show some degree of control over their BABIP levels by sustaining unusually low levels for a short period of time (Maddux between 1992 and 1996, for example). You're looking at statistics that do not act as effective predictive stats for how any given prospect will do in the majors. They tend to be mostly based on luck.

 

Eric Patterson's plate discipline is a heck of a lot better than most of the other guys in this system. He has much better walk rates than other notables such as Felix Pie, Tyler Colvin, and Mark Reed. If he knows how to take a walk and is able to hit line drives on a regular enough basis when he makes contact, then I think his future outlook is good. I don't think he'll become a superstar, but I think he'll turn out well enough to justify a starting role at 2B for much of his career.

[CubsWin]

I think someone who was intellectually honest would notice that Harvey's hot streak is tied directly to his batting average, and that even though he's played well there's no indication that he's turned any corner for what ails him, which is plate discipline. If Harvey had started the year hitting .400/.440 with nearly 7 times as many K's as walks, there would've been plenty people talking about the inevitability of his numbers taking a severe dive.

A very good point, one I was aware of and agree with, but isn't there more to being a successful hitter than a player's K/BB ratio or walk rate in his late teens/early twenties?

 

Is a steadily improving BABIP only due to luck or can it also be a sign that the player is making better contact consistently? Can't a player improve his approach, say better balance, quieter upper body at a given point in time and have that enable him to make better contact and then gradually learn better selectivity of which pitches to swing at as he goes? What is it about a young player's past that so concretely determines what he will be capable of in the future?

 

I completely agree that Harvey's walk rate is his main problem and not his strikeouts. And I also agree that it isn't the norm for guys without good walk rates to get them over time. But he is still just 21. Even though Cubs instructors in the past haven't proven to be great teachers of this discipline, isn't there evidence of that philosophy changing with Tim Wilken coming in? Look at the walk rates of this year's draftees. Clevenger, Lansford, Malone, Rundle and Andersen are all pretty darn good, aren't they?

 

I guess what I'm really asking of those that know more about this than I do is: Is a 21-year-old talented athlete at High-A doomed to fail because of how many walks he is able to get this year and the year before that? He will probably wind up with about the same amount of walks this year that he had last season, 24. Chase Utley walked 37 times in a similar number of ABs when he was 22 in High-A. The following year he walked 46 times and the year after that 41 times all with about 450 ABs. Is it truly that impossible or unlikely for Ryan Harvey to learn to draw a walk 20 more times a year over the next couple of seasons?

 

Maybe it is. I'm just asking.

[CubsWin]

I think you're missing the point on Ks, however.

 

Strikeouts are NOT indicative of plate discipline or patience. If we treat them the same as any other out (which I do), then a strikeout has the same predictive power as a groundout. Strikeouts rarely have any predictive power regarding a guy's potential success in the major leagues. Asking a guy to decrease his Ks could easily produce similar results to Neifi Perez and Juan Pierre. K'ing less does not indicate a player's future success.

 

Moreover, there are plenty of guys in the minors who K a lot and still have found success because of the number of walks they take. As long as you can walk at a reasonable rate, what the heck does it matter if all of your outs come from Ks? If you want a better indicator of why guys with high K rates seemingly flame out more often than those who do not can be traced right back to their IsoD. The reason why I'm so down on Ryan Harvey is because his BB rate is absolutely abysmal; not because he strikes out so often.

 

This is why IsoD is so important in projecting a guy down the line. If a guy shows the ability to take walks on a regular basis, then it's clear he has some semblance of a clue at the plate. Eric Patterson, in my mind, has put up a respectable IsoD (along with a few other stats) that shows he has good pitch recognition skills at a level with relatively advanced pitching. We've seen plenty of pitchers in recent years come straight from AA and succeed in the major leagues. He's faced plenty of pitchers who are good enough to come up to the majors and succeed during his time there.

 

To me, it's really hard to try to expect some level of consistency out of stats that are so heavily tied into batting average, which I believe we both agree is not something that's easy to predict as a prospect advances through the minors. Cripes, look at the studies on the career numbers of BABIP regarding pitchers. Basically, only the really elite guys have been able to show some degree of control over their BABIP levels by sustaining unusually low levels for a short period of time (Maddux between 1992 and 1996, for example). You're looking at statistics that do not act as effective predictive stats for how any given prospect will do in the majors. They tend to be mostly based on luck.

 

Eric Patterson's plate discipline is a heck of a lot better than most of the other guys in this system. He has much better walk rates than other notables such as Felix Pie, Tyler Colvin, and Mark Reed. If he knows how to take a walk and is able to hit line drives on a regular enough basis when he makes contact, then I think his future outlook is good. I don't think he'll become a superstar, but I think he'll turn out well enough to justify a starting role at 2B for much of his career.

I found this exceedingly well thought out and well written. It makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

 

Given this outlook and emphasis on walk rate, how does Scott Moore project?

[craig]

I think you're missing the point on Ks, however.

 

Strikeouts are NOT indicative of plate discipline or patience. If we treat them the same as any other out (which I do), then a strikeout has the same predictive power as a groundout. Strikeouts rarely have any predictive power regarding a guy's potential success in the major leagues. Asking a guy to decrease his Ks could easily produce similar results to Neifi Perez and Juan Pierre. K'ing less does not indicate a player's future success.

 

K's are outs. Outs are bad. Eric makes too many outs in the minors for a guy without plus power or gold-glove defense. That's why I don't think he's a plus prospect. He's a prospect; there's a chance something could change so that he's not such an outmaker. But unless something unusual does change, guys who are outmakers at age 23 in AA usually are outmakers in the major leagues.

 

 

Moreover, there are plenty of guys in the minors who K a lot and still have found success because of the number of walks they take. As long as you can walk at a reasonable rate, what the heck does it matter if all of your outs come from Ks?

 

Eric does not project to be one of them. A guy who projects an 0.060-type IsoD, that's not going to make it. If his IsoD is .360, then he could live on walks alone. But with an IsoD of 0.060 (his current approximate and my projection for him at the big-league level), he'll still need to come up with another .280-.300 to be a solid/asset starter.

 

Walks are not the only way to get on base. Hits also matter. Eric isn't getting enough of them. His BABIP is .320, which is relatively high; there is no reason to think it's been a matter of bad luck that he's gotten so few hits. To become a useful major leaguer, he'll need to reach base more often and make outs less consistently. Either he'll need to take more walks, or he'll need to get more hits. Status quo = limited future.

 

IsoD is important, it's huge. But it's not the only factor for offense! The ability to get hits is important. And it's not pure random luck who gets more hits.

 

This is why IsoD is so important in projecting a guy down the line. If a guy shows the ability to take walks on a regular basis, then it's clear he has some semblance of a clue at the plate. Eric Patterson, in my mind, has put up a respectable IsoD (along with a few other stats) that shows he has good pitch recognition skills at a level with relatively advanced pitching.

 

Agree. Eric has a semblance of a clue at the plate. If he fails, it's not for lack of a clue. However, even with the clue he has, he's still an outmaker in AA. Again, IsoD is important. But IsoD isn't the only predictor of future success or of future improvement. If it was, Brandon Sing would have wonderfully replaced DL'd Lee. Jon Mark Sprowl would be a big-league all-star. Matt Mauch would have never failed and gone to college football. Nomar Garciapara would be a career minor-leaguer. Hinske would be more than a fringe guy. Bellhorn would be able to count his organizations on one hand. Having plate discipline is not sufficient; you need to be able to hit the strikes that you recognize. Nomar does, Sing and Mauck and Sprowl can't.

 

To me, it's really hard to try to expect some level of consistency out of stats that are so heavily tied into batting average, which I believe we both agree is not something that's easy to predict as a prospect advances through the minors.

 

I don't think batting average is all that unpredictable. For the reasons you detail following. It seems to me that different players show BABIP patterns. And that when they deviate from reasonable, I expect them in future to move back toward the normal. The year before the Cubs got Barrett, he had a BABIP of like .202. Duh, that's anomolous. So I expected that his average would rise once his BABIP did. Bingo! Early this year when Reed had a .480 BABIP, duh, that's anomolous. Guess what? It returned toward normal, and his composite batting average reflects that. Last year, Eric had an exceptionally high BABIP, so I anticipated that would drop a lot this year and it has. Right now his BABIP is like .320, which if pretty good, and is probably more or less what one should expect for a hitter like him. So I think his batting average is right about where it belongs.

 

This is why I think it's problematic to project his outmaking to decrease a lot, if his peripherals don't change much. .320 BABIP is already quite high; you may find BA hard to predict. But I feel pretty comfortable predicting that Eric's BABIP next season will not exceed .350. And I certainly feel comfortable predicting that over the remainder of his professinal career, that Eric will not be able to sustain a .350 BABIP. You can probably count on two hands the guys in history of the game who have done that for over 500 AB's...

 

Cripes, look at the studies on the career numbers of BABIP regarding pitchers. Basically, only the really elite guys have been able to show some degree of control over their BABIP levels by sustaining unusually low levels for a short period of time (Maddux between 1992 and 1996, for example). You're looking at statistics that do not act as effective predictive stats for how any given prospect will do in the majors. They tend to be mostly based on luck.

 

This goes right to my point. You should not expect a guy to live on an extraordinary BABIP. If you are projecting Eric to be a success, but to do so will require a .350 BABIP, then you are almost certain to be disappointed. What we need to do is to assume a reasonable BABIP. Can a guy be a useful offensive contributor with a plausible BABIP? If Harvey needs to hit .400 BABIP to be useful, forget it. If Eric needs a .350 BABIP, you'll be disappointed. If a .280 BABIP is good enough, then feel very confident. In my mind, I figure that it's reasonable to project/hope that a good hitter will be able to BABIP in the .300-.330 range, depending on speed and power and line-drive aptitude, etc. And that's relatively optimistic, since the league norms, as youve noted, are in the .280's.

 

A second note: their are career, characteristic BABIP levels for hitters. It's not true that all hitters come back to the same tight BABIP-against norm that pitchers do. If a pitcher has a season with a .260 BABIP-against, extremely low, there is no reason to expect his BABIP-against to remain exceptional in future years. But there are many hitters who repeatedly, predictably have low BABIP's, and many hitters who repeatedly, predictably have high BABIP's. The range in hitter BABIP's is way, way higher than for pitcher BABIP=against.

 

Eric Patterson's plate discipline is a heck of a lot better than most of the other guys in this system. He has much better walk rates than other notables such as Felix Pie, Tyler Colvin, and Mark Reed. If he knows how to take a walk and is able to hit line drives on a regular enough basis when he makes contact, then I think his future outlook is good. I don't think he'll become a superstar, but I think he'll turn out well enough to justify a starting role at 2B for much of his career.

 

I agree that his plate disciplne is fine. But a 0.060 OBP won't suffice. He'll need to get some hits besides to support a .330+ OBP.

 

And in order to get enough hits for a 0.060 IsoD/.330+ OBP, he'll need to BABIP at .330+. That is an unrealistic expectation, even if does have good pich recognition and a good line-drive swing. Less than 0.5% of the hitters in baseball history have sustained a .330+ BABIP over their careers. It's unlikely that Eric will join them.

 

Essentially, I see your argument being that since he hits line drives and has good pitch recognition, that you expect him to support a .330+ BABIP. I think that's unlikely.

 

The above "expectation"/"requirement" is predicated on him sustaining his current K/HR BABNIP. If his K/HR profile improves, that relaxes the BABIP expectations.

 

Which is why I'd like his HR/K numbers to improve, even a little bit. Such that a .320 or .315 BABIP (which would not require him to be a HOF-caliber hitter) could support a good career. That wouldn't necessarily need to be a large change. Add an extra 5 HR's (to the benefit of OBP), turn 10 K's into batted balls (3 of which might drop in for hits), and now you no longer need such an extraordinary BABIP to support a .330-.345 OBP.

 

Summary: To project a guy, decide what a plausible BABIP might be for the player to figure how many hits and outs he'll likely make on balls in play. Consider how many non-batted outs he'll make via K. Consider how many non-catchable hits he'll get via HR.

 

Sum the hits via HR + the reasonably likely hits on balls in play, divide by the total number of AB's, and you come up with a reasonable batting average projection. Add the reasonable IsoD and you have a reasonable OBP projection. IT'S EASY!!

[craig]

One add-on note: K's are outs, bad for BABNIP, and raise the requirements for one's BABIP.

 

But you made a good point that obsessing over K's often makes things worse, not better. Reducing K's is desirable, if doing so doesn't compromise any of the good stuff you're already doing (taking walks, hitting the ball hard when you do hit it, hitting HR's...).

 

But often guys compromise on the good stuff in the effort to reduce the K's. You walk less; you make more lousy contact so that your BABIP drops; you swing with less authority so that you get fewer HR's.

 

Often adustments made with the goal of reducing K's does more harm than good. (We can see this with both Corey and Dopirak last year. Both knew they had K problems, and tried to solve by swinging early and often. Killed their walks, killed their HR output, killed their BABIP. The cure was worse than the disease.)

 

I'm not saying that Eric should make a change; he may already have found the optimal compromise. And it may be that any steps taken to reduce his K's will make him worse, not better.

 

But it appears to me that as he is now, he's not good enough. Something will need to change to make him better. If the only changes that he can make will make him worse, and he's already optimizd everything, then I don't think the future is very bright for him.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I completely agree that Harvey's walk rate is his main problem and not his strikeouts. And I also agree that it isn't the norm for guys without good walk rates to get them over time. But he is still just 21. Even though Cubs instructors in the past haven't proven to be great teachers of this discipline, isn't there evidence of that philosophy changing with Tim Wilken coming in? Look at the walk rates of this year's draftees. Clevenger, Lansford, Malone, Rundle and Andersen are all pretty darn good, aren't they?

 

Hopefully, I too have noticed that (moreso with Rundle and Andersen, since they are HS kids). Colvin's walk rate isn't too shabby either.

 

I guess what I'm really asking of those that know more about this than I do is: Is a 21-year-old talented athlete at High-A doomed to fail because of how many walks he is able to get this year and the year before that? He will probably wind up with about the same amount of walks this year that he had last season, 24. Chase Utley walked 37 times in a similar number of ABs when he was 22 in High-A. The following year he walked 46 times and the year after that 41 times all with about 450 ABs. Is it truly that impossible or unlikely for Ryan Harvey to learn to draw a walk 20 more times a year over the next couple of seasons?

 

Maybe it is. I'm just asking.

 

Using Chase Utley is probably not the right comparison for a Ryan Harvey-type. He might or might not have the same about of walks this year as last season, but his walk rate has been going down each and every season, this season included. This isn't that surprising, one would expect a players' walk rate to go down as he goes up the ladder, but with someone with as poor plate discipline as Harvey, that's a real big problem.

 

I'm not going to say he has no chance of improving but I really don't think a guy who's been playing pro baseball for 4 seasons is going to make the drastic changes needed. It's a tough change, and as craig points out, one has to make the right change. It's not just enough to cut down on strikeouts, he has to improve his swing, hold back on the offspeed stuff, etc. I don't think he can do it.

[YearofDaCubs]

Harvey with another multi-hit game tonight. And so far no Ks.

 

For those that think he is just terrible and simply sucks, they should ask themselves this question. Harvey started out the year terribly and over his last 100 ABs he is hitting near .400 and has raised his average on the year to around .250. Had he started hitting just below .400 for the first month and a half and then slumped to where he was now around .250, would we perceive him any differently?

 

Clearly, anyone who is intellectually honest will answer yes. Anyone who watches a player's batting average hold in the high .300s for a long time (and OPS sit over 1.000) and then drop into a very mediocre range will perceive his ability/worth differently than if they see his average hang around the Mendoza line for a long time and then later climb to around .250. The perception is vastly different, but the reality isn't. Its simply a matter of timing.

 

Though the fan will likely perceive the player who starts out hot and then slumps as better than the one who starts out cold. I would much rather have the latter, especially if the player is a young minor leaguer. Neither result is that good, either way he is a .250 hitter on the year at the moment, but the latter at least gives us reason to believe that something has clicked for Ryan Harvey.

 

Too many fans look at a player's stats and think that it sums up who he is. Stats are simply a measure of where the player has been, and especially in the case of young, highly talented athletes like Harvey, stats are not a measure of where he is destined to go. An indicator? Sure. His destiny? Hardly.

 

We'll just have to wait and see. Unless, of course, you're convinced that there is no possibility of seeing him do anything other than suck for the rest of his career. I guess those of you have only to hope that the Cubs try him as a pitcher.

All I know is that we really need power in the OF so here's hoping that he pans out.

[craig]

On walks, and the question of whether a guy can be taught plate discipline.

 

1. I think for many guys, the answer is no. Whether it's the Cubs teachers, the Oakland teachers, whether it starts at age 25 or 35 or 15 or 8. I think some players don't have the inborn talent to be able to see, process, and respond to pitches in flight.

 

I think it's a tool. Do I have the eyes and the mental computation speed to recognize a ball-in-flight, to quickly process how it's going to move and where it will be when it reaches the plate, and to be able to decide whether to swing or not. If I decide to swing, do I have the mental/physical processing speed to put the bat in the right place, and with enough force to drive the ball?

 

It requires an extraordinary processing ability that few humans have. I thnk this was Corey's issue. It wasn't that his will was necessarily bad. But he just doesn't have the mental computer to see a pitch and tell whether it will be belt high or eye high; whether it's going to stay straight and be in the zone, or slide/break a foot out of the zone.

 

It's the ability to distinguish fastball from slider, four-seamer from two-seamer, cutter from normal, etc. that largely determines a hitter's plate discipline. Ppitch recognition.

 

I don't believe coaches can teach pitch recognition. For many players who have the computation aptitude, with experience their pitch recognition increases, to there benefit.

 

But I think most playes with "bad plate discipline" suffer that not for lack of instruction, but from lack of the inborn tools required to recognize and process and respond to balls in flight. If you're guessing whether a pitch in flight will stay straight at belt, sail eye-high, sink below the knees, or slide a foot outside, how can you help it if you routinely guess wrong? Take the mashable straight belt-high, then swing at an untouchable slider and whiff at a head-high fastball? At the moment of decision, you just didn't have the ability to diagnose the pitch correctly.

 

I think it's foremost a tool. Corey didn't have it. It appears that harvey doesn't have it. Dopirak doesn't seem to have it. Aram does. Barrett does. Brian Giles does. I believe that Fox and Fuld, clevenger and Colvin, I think they do.

 

To some degree I think there are teachable factors. It may come and go. If your stance is poor so that your sightlines are bad, maybe. Or if your swing isn't smooth so that your eyes and computer are bouncing, that doesn't help. So I assume there are coaching factors that can help you avoid underperforming relative to the latent tool.

 

2. There is an obvious experience component for pitch recognition. A lot of guys will improve their pitch recognition based on experience alone.

 

3. I think "tools" scouts exaggerate the probability that experience will solve the pitch recognition problem. I think the cubs have tended to assume that experience would naturally cure the problems for Corey, harvey, pie, etc.. And I think that good hitting scouts have a knack for seeing which players have the innate ability to process pitches. Hopefull Wilken has that ability to recognize guys who have the talent to do this.

 

4. Beyond the unteachable "talent" component, though, there is a significant teachable component as well. If you don't have the innate talent, the pitch processing ability, it's hopeless. But there are a lot of other guys who's plate discipline is faulty and who have the talent to do a better job. They just don't have the will.

 

I think this applies especially to contact hitters. Guys like Pierre and Izturis, Barrett and Aram, Nomar. All of these guys have excellent pitch recognition skills, enough so that they can put the bat on the ball almost any time they swing. If they didn't have the computing ability, they wouldn't have so few swings-and-misses. That they make contact with such a high percentage of their swings means, I think, that they are well capable of recognizing and tracking pitches.

 

It's when these kind of talent-capable guys play the hackaway game that I think they are at fault. I don't really blame the teachers for Corey and Harvey. I don't think they have the talent to do it. But when Izturis is swinging at bad balls, when Pierre is choosing to swing at 3-1 pitches, that's where I have a problem. If they thought about things and were taught better, I think they could realize they should take pitches in a lot of situations where they are currently hacking.

 

It's in this area where I think instruction matters. I have a pretty good ability to read pitches and hit them. What are situations when I should *not* elect to swing? What are the game situations? What are the count situations? Are their pitches that I probably can make contact on that I should take anyway? Is a walk appropriate as a goal in itself, or simply a byproduct of not swinging at bad balls?

 

I think the Cubs are at fault for not emphasizing the value of walks as an end inthemselves. For not emphasizing the value of walks for players other than 1-2 hitters in the order. For not emphasizing the value of walks with no outs in an inning, or when down by several runs. For not emphasizing the value of taking pitches in certain counts. Or for at least laying off of borderline pitches in many situations.

 

In terms of scouting, I think they are at fault for not valuing IsoD enough, and not realizing how many playes will *not* simply pick it up through experience.

 

But I do think think that fans are often unfair to both players and farm instructors. There's a lot of guys who look bad because they don't have the talent to recognize pitches. If they don't, it's not their fault that they swing at a pitch in the eyes that they thought would cross at the plate. And it's not the coaches' fault that a player lacking the ability can't do it.

[Guest]

I agree with everything Craig has said here.

 

also...

 

A quick note:

 

IsoD is dependent upon batting average. The IsoD of a player who has walked 30 times in 330 PA's depends upon the batting average he carries. If a hitter is batting .200 will have an OBP of (60+30)/330 = .272 and an IsoD of 0.072. A .300 hitter in those same circumstances will have an OBP of (90+30)/330 = .363 and an IsoD of 0.063.

 

So I prefer to use BB/PA to look at the ability of a player to get on base through walks.

[craig]

Tim, thanks! Somebody who agrees with me about something! I didn't think anybody ever agreed with me about anything anymore.

 

Also, thanks for that note about IsoD. I've never actually realized that was true, or thought about why. Very helpful reminder.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I agree with everything Craig has said here.

 

also...

 

A quick note:

 

IsoD is dependent upon batting average. The IsoD of a player who has walked 30 times in 330 PA's depends upon the batting average he carries. If a hitter is batting .200 will have an OBP of (60+30)/330 = .272 and an IsoD of 0.072. A .300 hitter in those same circumstances will have an OBP of (90+30)/330 = .363 and an IsoD of 0.063.

 

So I prefer to use BB/PA to look at the ability of a player to get on base through walks.

 

Very good point and I agree. You notice that a lot of guys with lower BAs have much higher IsoDs than guys with higher BAs - it doesn't necessarily mean they have a better eye or are more patient.

[Guest]

I can't take too much credit. Someone had to remind me about that a while back.

[snoodmonger]

On walks, and the question of whether a guy can be taught plate discipline.

 

1. I think for many guys, the answer is no. Whether it's the Cubs teachers, the Oakland teachers, whether it starts at age 25 or 35 or 15 or 8. I think some players don't have the inborn talent to be able to see, process, and respond to pitches in flight.

 

I think it's a tool. Do I have the eyes and the mental computation speed to recognize a ball-in-flight, to quickly process how it's going to move and where it will be when it reaches the plate, and to be able to decide whether to swing or not. If I decide to swing, do I have the mental/physical processing speed to put the bat in the right place, and with enough force to drive the ball?

 

It requires an extraordinary processing ability that few humans have. I thnk this was Corey's issue. It wasn't that his will was necessarily bad. But he just doesn't have the mental computer to see a pitch and tell whether it will be belt high or eye high; whether it's going to stay straight and be in the zone, or slide/break a foot out of the zone.

 

It's the ability to distinguish fastball from slider, four-seamer from two-seamer, cutter from normal, etc. that largely determines a hitter's plate discipline. Ppitch recognition.

 

I don't believe coaches can teach pitch recognition. For many players who have the computation aptitude, with experience their pitch recognition increases, to there benefit.

 

But I think most playes with "bad plate discipline" suffer that not for lack of instruction, but from lack of the inborn tools required to recognize and process and respond to balls in flight. If you're guessing whether a pitch in flight will stay straight at belt, sail eye-high, sink below the knees, or slide a foot outside, how can you help it if you routinely guess wrong? Take the mashable straight belt-high, then swing at an untouchable slider and whiff at a head-high fastball? At the moment of decision, you just didn't have the ability to diagnose the pitch correctly.

 

I think it's foremost a tool. Corey didn't have it. It appears that harvey doesn't have it. Dopirak doesn't seem to have it. Aram does. Barrett does. Brian Giles does. I believe that Fox and Fuld, clevenger and Colvin, I think they do.

 

To some degree I think there are teachable factors. It may come and go. If your stance is poor so that your sightlines are bad, maybe. Or if your swing isn't smooth so that your eyes and computer are bouncing, that doesn't help. So I assume there are coaching factors that can help you avoid underperforming relative to the latent tool.

 

2. There is an obvious experience component for pitch recognition. A lot of guys will improve their pitch recognition based on experience alone.

 

3. I think "tools" scouts exaggerate the probability that experience will solve the pitch recognition problem. I think the cubs have tended to assume that experience would naturally cure the problems for Corey, harvey, pie, etc.. And I think that good hitting scouts have a knack for seeing which players have the innate ability to process pitches. Hopefull Wilken has that ability to recognize guys who have the talent to do this.

 

4. Beyond the unteachable "talent" component, though, there is a significant teachable component as well. If you don't have the innate talent, the pitch processing ability, it's hopeless. But there are a lot of other guys who's plate discipline is faulty and who have the talent to do a better job. They just don't have the will.

 

I think this applies especially to contact hitters. Guys like Pierre and Izturis, Barrett and Aram, Nomar. All of these guys have excellent pitch recognition skills, enough so that they can put the bat on the ball almost any time they swing. If they didn't have the computing ability, they wouldn't have so few swings-and-misses. That they make contact with such a high percentage of their swings means, I think, that they are well capable of recognizing and tracking pitches.

 

It's when these kind of talent-capable guys play the hackaway game that I think they are at fault. I don't really blame the teachers for Corey and Harvey. I don't think they have the talent to do it. But when Izturis is swinging at bad balls, when Pierre is choosing to swing at 3-1 pitches, that's where I have a problem. If they thought about things and were taught better, I think they could realize they should take pitches in a lot of situations where they are currently hacking.

 

It's in this area where I think instruction matters. I have a pretty good ability to read pitches and hit them. What are situations when I should *not* elect to swing? What are the game situations? What are the count situations? Are their pitches that I probably can make contact on that I should take anyway? Is a walk appropriate as a goal in itself, or simply a byproduct of not swinging at bad balls?

 

I think the Cubs are at fault for not emphasizing the value of walks as an end inthemselves. For not emphasizing the value of walks for players other than 1-2 hitters in the order. For not emphasizing the value of walks with no outs in an inning, or when down by several runs. For not emphasizing the value of taking pitches in certain counts. Or for at least laying off of borderline pitches in many situations.

 

In terms of scouting, I think they are at fault for not valuing IsoD enough, and not realizing how many playes will *not* simply pick it up through experience.

 

But I do think think that fans are often unfair to both players and farm instructors. There's a lot of guys who look bad because they don't have the talent to recognize pitches. If they don't, it's not their fault that they swing at a pitch in the eyes that they thought would cross at the plate. And it's not the coaches' fault that a player lacking the ability can't do it.

 

If this is the case, do you have lower expectations for Pie than most? It would seem to me you're suggesting what we see now (approach-wise) is what we'll get. Or is there room for optimism that he can improve his BB rate/OBP?