Cubs Minor League First Half Discussion

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't know, but for me, I'd take chiefsvoice's opinion first.

 

But why use the "at the time" argument when we're talking about the entire season to date?

 

Because he wasn't responding to best first half, he was responding to who was the best SP at each level

 

So then why ignore part of Atkins' performance at that level, especially considering how both pitchers were trending.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

When you are trying to figure who was best in the entire first half, why randomly cut off Atkins' numbers? We're already ignoring that Veal went to the next level and didn't give up a run for 20 IP(or whatever it was). There's no point in disregarding Atkins' performance after Veal was promoted.

 

I understand Nate's argument, though. At the time of Veal's promotion, he and Atkins were similarly rated. Veal and Atkins both had their upsides at the time...but Atkins is a year younger. Things are different since then, but at the time, Nate's got a good argument.

 

Regarding my choice, I was evaluating performance more than anything else, though.

 

But why use the "at the time" argument when we're talking about the entire season to date?

 

Because we also started talking about the best performance level-by-level.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Atkins pitched better as a starter here than Veal did...So i'd pick him.

 

How do you figure?

 

um lets see.

 

1. More wins doesn't matter

2. lower era incorrect

3. less walks

4. less hits allowed incorrect

5. lewss homers allowed incorrect

6. more ground ball outs

7. more team wins in his starts doesn't matter

8. much more consistent

 

is that enough or should i keep going for you?

 

Veal gave up fewer runs and baserunners, and struck out many more. He walked more, but his K/BB ratio was better too. You can see the numbers here.

 

apparently i should have qualified my answer with WHEN VEAL LEFT.....or maybe you have seen all their starts this season....?

 

So I went through and tabulated Atkins' stats at the time of Veal's promotion:

 

Mitch Atkins: 72.1 IP, 53 H, 5 HR, 68 K/25 BB, 2.24 ERA 1.08 WHIP, .196 BAA

 

Donnie Veal: 73.2 IP, 45 H, 4 HR, 86 K/40 BB, 2.69 ERA, 1.15 WHIP, .169 BAA

 

To go over Nathan's list:

 

1. More wins: Yes, Atkins had 6 and Veal had 5 (though I think this is a poor stat to judge a pitcher).

2. lower era - Yes, 2.24 to 2.69.

3. less walks - Yes, 25 to 40. Of course Veal has the K advantage.

4. less hits allowed - No, Veal had 45 Hs, Atkins 53.

5. lewss homers allowed - No, Veal had 4 HR to Atkins 5

6. more ground ball outs - Not going to look it up but I'm sure Atkins wins this in a landslide.

7. more team wins in his starts - Eh, so what?

8. much more consistent - I guess...though in the stat line I showed above, Veal was better than Atkins in 4 out of 7 categories.

 

So, of the corrections TT made to your list based on Atkins' current stats, he was only wrong on the ERAs at the time of Veal's promotion.

[Outshined_One]

Best Hitter of the First Half

 

In order to assemble this list, I required a player to have a minimum of 100 ABs this season. Please note that I am unable to combine stats because I unfortunately lack HBP numbers for this season. Finally, in the case of Miguel Negron, I am only counting his numbers in the Cubs' system. Stats from today's game have not been factored in. My list, my rules. :P

 

Candidates

 

IF Mike Fontenot

AAA: 82 G, 256 ABs, .305/.390/.453/.843, 78 H, 16 2B, 2 3B, 6 HR, 35 R, 20 RBI, 47/35 K/BB, 5 SB, 3 CS

1B/OF Micah Hoffpauir

AA: 40 G, 138 ABs, .268/.362/.594/.956, 37 H, 11 2B, 2 3B, 10 HR, 28 R, 31 RBI, 29/20 K/BB.

AAA: 46 G, 155 ABs, .239/.328/.458/.786, 37 H, 5 2B, 1 3B, 9 HR, 19 R, 27 RBI, 40/22 K/BB, 1 CS

OF Luis Montanez

AA: 38 G, 141 ABs, .369/.438/.489/.927, 52 H, 11 2B, 2 HR, 24 R, 25 RBI, 26/15 K/BB, 5 SB, 3 CS

AAA: 41 G, 127 ABs, .220/.286/.346/.632, 28 H, 7 2B, 3 HR, 11 R, 11 RBI, 22/10 K/BB, 1 CS

3B Scott Moore

AA: 85 G, 299 ABs, .278/.342/.488/.830, 83 H, 21 2B, 14 HR, 33 R, 50 RBI, 86/25 K/BB, 11 SB, 6 CS

2B Eric Patterson

AA: 88 G, 323 ABs, .279/.338/.418/.756, 90 H, 18 2B, 6 3B, 5 HR, 51 R, 34 RBI, 65/30 K/BB, 28 SB, 7 CS

OF Chris Walker

AA: 87 G, 341 AB, .311/.366/.411/.777, 106 H, 14 2B, 7 3B, 2 HR, 50 R, 29 RBI, 57/25 K/BB, 35 SB, 12 CS

OF Miguel Negron

AA: 39 G, 123 AB, .366/.407/.553/.960, 45 H, 14 2B, 3 3B, 1 HR, 16 R, 19 RBI, 19/10 K/BB, 4 SB, 1 CS

OF Nic Jackson

High A: 18 G, 69 AB, .275/.375/.493/.868, 19 H, 3 2B, 3 3B, 2 HR, 12 R, 7 RBI, 15/8 K/BB, 6 SB, 2 CS

AA: 64 G, 221 AB, .312/.384/.475/.859, 69 H, 17 2B, 5 3B, 3 HR, 32 R, 35 RBI, 44/25 K/BB, 15 SB, 5 CS

C Jake Fox

High A: 66 G, 249 ABs, .313/.383/.574/.957, 78 H, 15 2B, 1 3B, 16 HR, 45 R, 61 RBI, 49/27 K/BB, 4 SB, 1 CS

AA: 14 G, 48 ABs, .208/.255/.354/.609, 10 H, 4 2B, 1 HR, 4 R, 4 RBI, 11/3 K/BB

1B Matt Craig

High A: 81 G, 287 ABs, .286/.380/.474/.854, 82 H, 21 2B, 3 3B, 9 HR, 43 R, 52 RBI, 77/42 K/BB, 4 SB, 1 CS

OF Sam Fuld

High A: 70 G, 283 ABs, .325/.404/.445/.845, 92 H, 15 2B, 5 3B, 3 HR, 51 R, 33 RBI, 45/34 K/BB, 20 SB, 3 CS

1B Ryan Norwood

Low A: 85 G, 327 ABs, .318/.351/.468/.819, 104 H, 19 2B, 10 HR, 39 R, 45 RBI, 69/10 K/BB, 2 SB

C Mark Reed

Low A: 68 G, 238 ABs, .290/.340/.353/.693, 69 H, 9 2B, 2 HR, 39 R, 23 RBI, 54/14 K/BB, 14 SB, 6 CS

 

Analysis

 

Hoo boy. The Cubs have had a lot of trouble developing and producing everyday starting position players in recent history; we all know that for a fact. Names like David Kelton, Hee Seop Choi, Corey Patterson, and so on bring back some happy memories, don't they? The way matters have unfolded for all of them was just a myriad of factors, be it injuries, questionable coaching, or just troubles adjusting as they rose through the minors. I hold nothing personal against them and frankly feel worse about what could have been than anything else. These guys had the tools to make it big...but so far, that just has not been the case.

 

Unfortunately, this season has not been kind to the position players in the farm system. Guys are working their tails off, but the results just haven't shown through. In some cases, injuries and ailments have hampered some of the more promising hitters (Dopirak, Sing, Johnston), setting back their development. In others, guys performed well at one level, but then received a promotion and struggled. A lot of the players on this list either were old for their respective leagues or were repeating a level (if not both) due to injuries or a logjam at their positions.

 

It was hard to pick a guy to win this award. I took a bunch of factors into account and still had a handful of guys to pick from. Guys who tore apart one league floundered after a promotion. Guys with good speed and AVG didn't have much power. Some guys were jacks of all trades, but masters of none. I went with the guy who had the hottest hand for most of the first half:

 

C Jake Fox

 

Yep, Tim's favorite. He was old for Daytona and struggled in his callup to West Tenn, but he has a number of things going for him this season. For one, even though he accumulated 48 ABs at West Tenn after his promotion, he still is second in the Florida State League in HRs with 16. He also still leads the FSL in OPS (.957) and SLG (.574). Putting those numbers up in a pitcher-friendly league is quite hard to do.

 

Moreover, he has accumulated 17 total HRs (second to Micah in the system!) and actually shows good patience at the plate compared to some of the other guys on this list. He's all doing it at a position where offense is a bonus, to boot.

 

Congratulations to Jake! :D

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I guess this sort of fits in here:

 

Charlie (DC): If you were making you Cubs' prospect list right now, who would rank higher Gallagher or Pawelek?

 

Jim Callis: Probably Gallagher. His stuff has gotten better, while Pawelek wasn't ready to open the season in a full-season league.

 

And on top of that, Pawelek has not done well at Boise.

[Guest]

I went with the guy who had the hottest hand for most of the first half:

 

C Jake Fox

 

Yep, Tim's favorite.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[ChiefsVoice]

Atkins pitched better as a starter here than Veal did...So i'd pick him.

 

How do you figure?

 

um lets see.

 

1. More wins doesn't matter

2. lower era incorrect

3. less walks

4. less hits allowed incorrect

5. lewss homers allowed incorrect

6. more ground ball outs

7. more team wins in his starts doesn't matter

8. much more consistent

 

is that enough or should i keep going for you?

 

Veal gave up fewer runs and baserunners, and struck out many more. He walked more, but his K/BB ratio was better too. You can see the numbers here.

 

apparently i should have qualified my answer with WHEN VEAL LEFT.....or maybe you have seen all their starts this season....?

 

When you are trying to figure who was best in the entire first half, why randomly cut off Atkins' numbers? We're already ignoring that Veal went to the next level and didn't give up a run for 20 IP(or whatever it was). There's no point in disregarding Atkins' performance after Veal was promoted.

 

If you read the posts, I said that Atkins was the Chiefs best pitcher in the first half.....thats why you cut off the stats there....unlike others, i try not to evaluate guys that I don't see in person....thats why baseball america sucks....

[ChiefsVoice]

 

7. more team wins in his starts - Eh, so what?

 

 

so what????? Its the only reason we play the games!!! If wins didnt matter, Dusty wouldnt be on your guys' hot seat. If wins didnt matter we wouldn't play....

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Atkins pitched better as a starter here than Veal did...So i'd pick him.

 

How do you figure?

 

um lets see.

 

1. More wins doesn't matter

2. lower era incorrect

3. less walks

4. less hits allowed incorrect

5. lewss homers allowed incorrect

6. more ground ball outs

7. more team wins in his starts doesn't matter

8. much more consistent

 

is that enough or should i keep going for you?

 

Veal gave up fewer runs and baserunners, and struck out many more. He walked more, but his K/BB ratio was better too. You can see the numbers here.

 

apparently i should have qualified my answer with WHEN VEAL LEFT.....or maybe you have seen all their starts this season....?

 

When you are trying to figure who was best in the entire first half, why randomly cut off Atkins' numbers? We're already ignoring that Veal went to the next level and didn't give up a run for 20 IP(or whatever it was). There's no point in disregarding Atkins' performance after Veal was promoted.

 

If you read the posts, I said that Atkins was the Chiefs best pitcher in the first half.....thats why you cut off the stats there....unlike others, i try not to evaluate guys that I don't see in person....thats why baseball america sucks....

 

Since they rely on scouts and managers who actually see the players? They're right more often than they're wrong and are the best at the business.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

 

7. more team wins in his starts - Eh, so what?

 

 

so what????? Its the only reason we play the games!!! If wins didnt matter, Dusty wouldnt be on your guys' hot seat. If wins didnt matter we wouldn't play....

 

Yes, wins are good. But not a good way to evaluate a pitcher. A pitcher's W-L record and his teams' W-L record in his starts aren't basd on just what the pitcher does. It also consider's the team's offense, bullpen, etc. Why not use other stats that are more dependent on the pitcher himself?

[Chris]

A pitcher's W-L record and his teams' W-L record in his starts aren't basd on just what the pitcher does.

 

Agreed. A pitcher may only last 2/3 of an inning but start on a night that the team puts a ton of runs on the board to come from behind and get the win. On the same note, a pitcher could throw 8 scoreless innings and get no offensive support and watch the team lose 1-0. I don't believe team wins and/or losses in starts are a fair measuring stick for pitchers.

 

BTW, I am loving the discussion in this thread.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I went with the guy who had the hottest hand for most of the first half:

 

C Jake Fox

 

Yep, Tim's favorite.

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

 

I gotta agree with Outshined too. He's struggled in WT, but it's only been 48 ABs. Nic Jackson is close, but he's doing it at A+ and AA at age 26. Fuld is third, I really didn't expect his OPS to be that high.

[Outshined_One]

I was really tempted to take Jackson due to his consistency, but his comparative lack of power numbers, age, and fact that he was repeating both Daytona (for the third time) and West Tenn held him back.

[ChiefsVoice]

Atkins pitched better as a starter here than Veal did...So i'd pick him.

 

How do you figure?

 

um lets see.

 

1. More wins doesn't matter

2. lower era incorrect

3. less walks

4. less hits allowed incorrect

5. lewss homers allowed incorrect

6. more ground ball outs

7. more team wins in his starts doesn't matter

8. much more consistent

 

is that enough or should i keep going for you?

 

Veal gave up fewer runs and baserunners, and struck out many more. He walked more, but his K/BB ratio was better too. You can see the numbers here.

 

apparently i should have qualified my answer with WHEN VEAL LEFT.....or maybe you have seen all their starts this season....?

 

When you are trying to figure who was best in the entire first half, why randomly cut off Atkins' numbers? We're already ignoring that Veal went to the next level and didn't give up a run for 20 IP(or whatever it was). There's no point in disregarding Atkins' performance after Veal was promoted.

 

If you read the posts, I said that Atkins was the Chiefs best pitcher in the first half.....thats why you cut off the stats there....unlike others, i try not to evaluate guys that I don't see in person....thats why baseball america sucks....

 

Since they rely on scouts and managers who actually see the players? They're right more often than they're wrong and are the best at the business.

 

Sorry bud, talk to anyone who knows about baseball and they will tell you over completely over-rated Baseball america is...they see a guy maybe once, even the scouts do. thats how guys like Gallagher or Patterson get bad raps, a guys sees them once when they have a bad game and writes bad things....If you really wanna know about guys, ask people who see them every day....season ticket holders, front office guys, media, coaches, other players, etc....

 

Im friends with a few scouts who are here on a yearly basis for 2-4 games. ..every year they come up and ask me, " who should i watch, who impresses you, etc" they miss on quite a few guys....hell look how high BA had Harvey this season....hell Dan ugglas is #29 in the Marlins system and is a rookie all-star and possible ROY....and on and on...

[ChiefsVoice]

 

7. more team wins in his starts - Eh, so what?

 

 

so what????? Its the only reason we play the games!!! If wins didnt matter, Dusty wouldnt be on your guys' hot seat. If wins didnt matter we wouldn't play....

 

Yes, wins are good. But not a good way to evaluate a pitcher. A pitcher's W-L record and his teams' W-L record in his starts aren't basd on just what the pitcher does. It also consider's the team's offense, bullpen, etc. Why not use other stats that are more dependent on the pitcher himself?

 

all im saying is every stat is flawed, every single one....thats why im no longer a stat guy. i was until i got into the business. your team winning is ALL that matters. thats why its a team sport....so if Greg Maddux is 3-10 but the Cubs are 25-10 in his 35 starts then I would say he has had a successful season...

[Outshined_One]

all im saying is every stat is flawed, every single one....thats why im no longer a stat guy.

 

You are right; there is no such thing as a perfect statistic. There is no single stat out there which can tell us how good a guy is or how good a guy will be. Every one of them has flaws; OBP measures all stats as equal, SLG doesn't count walks, AVG can be heavily dependent on cheapies, RBIs are team-dependent, and so on.

 

However, stats are incredibly important because we can't be there. I've never seen a Chiefs game in person, despite my best efforts. I can't tell you what I think about Ryan Norwood's footwork around the bag or Yusuf Carter's stance. The vast majority of Cubs fans only know about these guys and their potential based on their stats. We also try our best to use as many stats as possible to evaluate a guy because we want to get the best possible read on a guy and would hate to make a misstep because we didn't realize his HR/9 was abnormally low.

 

Secondly, stats are helpful because they can tell us about a guy beyond what we see with our eyes. Just looking at him and watching him, maybe some people think a guy is a good ballplayer who should be starting for the Cubs every day. He has good ABs, seems smooth in the field, and is well-respected and a leader in the clubhouse. However, upon looking at the stats, we find out that the guy is hitting .250/.270 with 2 HRs in 100 ABs. Furthermore, his backup, who seems like less of a ballplayer in the field, is actually hitting .280/.370 with 4HRs in 50 ABs.

 

Team wins are all that matter in the end, but the guys with the best stats are most likely to get a team the most wins.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Sorry bud, talk to anyone who knows about baseball and they will tell you over completely over-rated Baseball america is...they see a guy maybe once, even the scouts do. thats how guys like Gallagher or Patterson get bad raps, a guys sees them once when they have a bad game and writes bad things....If you really wanna know about guys, ask people who see them every day....season ticket holders, front office guys, media, coaches, other players, etc....

 

Patterson and Gallagher were both in the top 12 of Cubs prospects before this season. Just because they have a negative report doesn't mean they hate a player or will continue to pan some guy.

 

Im friends with a few scouts who are here on a yearly basis for 2-4 games. ..every year they come up and ask me, " who should i watch, who impresses you, etc" they miss on quite a few guys....hell look how high BA had Harvey this season....hell Dan ugglas is #29 in the Marlins system and is a rookie all-star and possible ROY....and on and on...

 

Dan Uggla having a ridiculous BABIP inflated half season doesn't prove that BA is a fraud.

 

BA on Harvey: "Harvey has a huge ceiling but will have to make several adjustments at the plate to reach it. He's a free swinger with a long stroke who struggles against inside fastballs and chases wayward breaking balls. His two-strike approach is poor. It remains to be seen how well Harvey will do against more advanced pitching, and he'll probably never hit for a high average."

 

BA combines potential and the ability to meet that potential in their rankings. They're very good at what they do, no matter how much of a vendetta people may have against them.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

BA had Harvey ranked 7th in the Cubs system going into the season...seems about right. It's an indictment of the quality of the system itself.

 

BA definitely has its flaws, but it's still the best in the business.

[Laura]

BA definitely has its flaws, but it's still the best in the business.

 

Who's really the competition?

 

 

I read BA and I also really appreciate the insights of the people who do see the minor leaguers day in and day out because so few are in that position.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

BA definitely has its flaws, but it's still the best in the business.

 

Who's really the competition?

 

BP, Scout.com sites and specific individuals like Sickels, I guess. There's not much there, but BA has set the bar high.

[Laura]

Yes, I was mainly thinking BP and Sickels.

 

I haven't subscribed to Scout.com in a while; my impression is that (despite the name) they weren't as scout-oriented as the others.

[mhuber92211]

Talking about the hitters I think that Adjustments were a key disappointment. Many of them on the list seemingly got off to hot starts but weren't able to sustain them.

 

I have to say though that seeing Nic Jackson come back and do well has been the feel good story for the entire year and for the entire organization. Hopefully he can build on this season, make an impression in the spring and get a chance to be a bench guy.

 

Another guy that jumps out that I didn't really realize is Fontenot. I didn't realize his OBP is so ridiculouly high. Why he is not with the big club is strikingly odd. Can he fill in at 3rd still?

[abuck1220]

hell Dan ugglas is #29 in the Marlins system and is a rookie all-star and possible ROY....and on and on...

 

was anyone hyping uggla before the season? it's not as if coaches, the media, fans, etc were screaming at the top of their lungs about how great he was, but BA just refused to have it.

[Outshined_One]

Best Reliever of the First Half

 

Once again, I'm evaluating only guys who are eligible for Rookie of the Year. I am also only counting guys who have pitched at least 30 innings as relievers this season. Unfortunately, this leaves out Michael Wuertz and Jeremy Papelbon from the running. I will discuss both briefly below.

 

Candidates

 

LHP Clay Rapada

(AAA): 7 G, 4.2 IP, 5.79 ERA, 12 H, 0 HR, 3.21 WHIP, 4/3 K/BB

(AA): 33 G, 43.2 IP, .82 ERA, 30 H, 1 HR, 45/10 K/BB, .92 WHIP, 21 SV

Total: 40 G, 48.1 IP, 1.30 ERA, 42 H, 1 HR, 49/13 K/BB, 1.14 WHIP, .225 BAA, 21 SV

RHP Thomas Atlee

(AAA): 9 G, 12 IP, 5.25 ERA, 10 H, 2 HR, 6/10 K/BB, 1.67 WHIP

(AA): 25 G, 43 IP, 1.67 ERA, 31 H, 2 HR, 33/11 K/BB, .98 WHIP, 2 SV

Total: 34 G, 55 IP, 2.45ERA, 41 H, 4 HR, 39/21 K/BB, 1.11 WHIP, .199 BAA, 2 SV

RHP Rocky Cherry

Total (AA): 29 G, 46.2 IP, 1.93 ERA, 40 H, 3 HR, 46/14 K/BB, 1.16 WHIP, .182 BAA, 2 SV

LHP Ed Campusano

(AA): 5 G, 7.2 IP, 4.70 ERA, 10 H, 2 HR, 13/1 K/BB, 1.43 WHIP, 1 SV

(Low A): 26 G, 29.2 IP, 1.21 ERA, 16 H, 0 HR, 47/9 K/BB, .84 WHIP, 21 SV

Total: 31 G, 37.1 IP, 1.93 ERA, 26 H, 2 HR, 60/10 K/BB, .96 WHIP, .188 BAA, 22 SV

RHP Adalberto Mendez

Total (High A): 37 G, 49 IP, 1.84 ERA, 37 H, 1 HR, 57/12 K/BB, 1.00 WHIP, .201 BAA, 14 SV

RHP Matthew Avery

Total (Low A): 30 G, 46.2 IP, 1.16 ERA, 29 H, 2 HR, 47/21 K/BB, 1.07 WHIP, .172 BAA, 8 SV

 

Analysis

 

First off, I think shoutouts are in order for Jeremy Papelbon and Michael Wuertz, who would both be in contention for this award were they eligible for it. Papelbon has yet to give up a run during his stint in Boise, striking out 17 and walking 4 in 14 innings. Wuertz, on the other hand, would be a strong candidate for this award with his performance down in Iowa thus far. 35.1 IP, 1.78 ERA, 58/8 K/BB, and 2 HR is fantastic for a reliever. He's quite similar to Rich Hill at this point...

 

Regarding the guys above, as you can tell, the Cubs have been quite well off when it comes to pitching in their system. The starters have put up some gaudy numbers and the relievers have followed in kind. While it is much harder for a guy to make it to the majors if he is largely a reliever in a team's system rather than a starter, a number of guys still can make it and succeed on that path. This group of guys is no exception; they have helped slam the door and hold leads with the best of them.

 

Also, once again, the Cubs have stellar performances from guys at every level. Ron, you have been especially lucky considering how many of these guys have been in AA! It is incredibly clear that, from a pitching standpoint, the Cubs have pieced together a formidable group of starters and relievers this year. The Cubs have plenty of pitchers in this system who could blossom into major league-caliber players. These are some of the best guys from a terrific group of relievers

 

Thus, it is with great pleasure that I bestow this award upon:

 

LHP Edward Campusano

 

Let's face it, he mowed down the competition at Peoria and earned a double promotion to West Tenn, where he is starting to settle in and re-establish himself. This award was easy to give considering his strikeouts and ability to miss bats. That's just snazzy, in my opinion. Here's hoping he keeps this up when he gets up to Chicago! :D

 

Tomorrow, I'll be discussing risers and fallers. Should be fun times!

[Outshined_One]

Another guy that jumps out that I didn't really realize is Fontenot. I didn't realize his OBP is so ridiculouly high. Why he is not with the big club is strikingly odd. Can he fill in at 3rd still?

 

He still can play 3B, but Casey McGehee gets most of the time there.

 

I'd like to see him called up and given a look when Walker is traded. He could end up being a pretty good bench guy.