Harvey

[BeerHere]

Like I said, the draft is definitly a crapshoot. Hendry has a history of taking high risk/high ceiling players early though and that concerns me. A team with this budget shouldn't spend the money freely just because they can, their is still some projection that needs to happen and a strength/weakness evaluation. I'm not saying that these things didn't happen but the Montanez, Christiansen, Brownlie and Harvey picks suggest an over-emphasis on high risk players early in the draft. If they're the consensus picks, great. Let someone else pick em.

 

I look forward to Wilken's drafts for this very reason, although the Colvin pick has me scratching my head a little as well.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Ryan Harvey was the consensus pick at #6, it was him or Michael Aubrey and it looks like most teams would have taken Harvey. It's not like this year, when the Cubs took a player some other teams would have taken in the 2nd or 3rd round over other guys who were rated higher by most, if not all teams.

 

Consensus or not, the Cubs took a guy high who has been a major disappointment, again.

 

Agreed. But saying the Cubs could have taken players like Murton, Markakis - even Wood or Billingsley at 6 would have been reaches and would have caused the reaction the Colvin pick created this year. Few teams, if any, would have rated these guys who went lower as higher than Harvey.

 

And, of course, in the Cubs system, we're not sure if these other players would have developed the same (and, of course, if Harey was picked by another team, he might have developed better). It just seems like a pointless complaint to be upset the Cubs passed on Billingsley or Wood for Harvey.

 

Doesn't mean I'm not mad the Cubs passed up on Milledge.

[BeerHere]

Ryan Harvey was the consensus pick at #6, it was him or Michael Aubrey and it looks like most teams would have taken Harvey. It's not like this year, when the Cubs took a player some other teams would have taken in the 2nd or 3rd round over other guys who were rated higher by most, if not all teams.

 

Feel free to question the Colvin pick all you want, but until the guy flames out in A ball I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least initially.

[BeerHere]

Ryan Harvey was the consensus pick at #6, it was him or Michael Aubrey and it looks like most teams would have taken Harvey. It's not like this year, when the Cubs took a player some other teams would have taken in the 2nd or 3rd round over other guys who were rated higher by most, if not all teams.

 

Consensus or not, the Cubs took a guy high who has been a major disappointment, again.

 

Agreed. But saying the Cubs could have taken players like Murton, Markakis - even Wood or Billingsley at 6 would have been reaches and would have caused the reaction the Colvin pick created this year. Few teams, if any, would have rated these guys who went lower as higher than Harvey.

 

And, of course, in the Cubs system, we're not sure if these other players would have developed the same (and, of course, if Harey was picked by another team, he might have developed better). It just seems like a pointless complaint to be upset the Cubs passed on Billingsley or Wood for Harvey.

 

Doesn't mean I'm not mad the Cubs passed up on Milledge.

 

Pointless? I disagree, it's an evaluation process in my mind and if Jim Hendry was reading this post he would probably disagree with me. It does tend to make me wonder what could have been and that is pointless.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Like I said, the draft is definitly a crapshoot. Hendry has a history of taking high risk/high ceiling players early though and that concerns me. A team with this budget shouldn't spend the money freely just because they can, their is still some projection that needs to happen and a strength/weakness evaluation. I'm not saying that these things didn't happen but the Montanez, Christiansen, Brownlie and Harvey picks suggest an over-emphasis on high risk players early in the draft. If they're the consensus picks, great. Let someone else pick em.

 

I look forward to Wilken's drafts for this very reason, although the Colvin pick has me scratching my head a little as well.

 

What these high risk/high ceiling picks seem to be showing is a lack of development/coaching in the system.

 

The Cubs should take the BPA every time, not avoid him because there's a higher risk in picking him.

 

Monantez is not the same situation as Harvey - he wasn't the BPA and there was a prearranged contract.

 

The Cubs passed on the higher risk Kyle Drabek (BPA, imo) for Tyler Colvin this year.

[BeerHere]

Ryan Harvey was the consensus pick at #6, it was him or Michael Aubrey and it looks like most teams would have taken Harvey. It's not like this year, when the Cubs took a player some other teams would have taken in the 2nd or 3rd round over other guys who were rated higher by most, if not all teams.

 

Consensus or not, the Cubs took a guy high who has been a major disappointment, again.

 

Agreed. But saying the Cubs could have taken players like Murton, Markakis - even Wood or Billingsley at 6 would have been reaches and would have caused the reaction the Colvin pick created this year. Few teams, if any, would have rated these guys who went lower as higher than Harvey.

 

And, of course, in the Cubs system, we're not sure if these other players would have developed the same (and, of course, if Harey was picked by another team, he might have developed better). It just seems like a pointless complaint to be upset the Cubs passed on Billingsley or Wood for Harvey.

 

Doesn't mean I'm not mad the Cubs passed up on Milledge.

 

Call me crazy, but I have a feeling that Milledge might be traded this offseason. The Mets will be in the market for at least one starter. I'd send them a young pitching prospect that already has pitched in the big leagues for him. Might even throw in Harvey for that matter.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Ryan Harvey was the consensus pick at #6, it was him or Michael Aubrey and it looks like most teams would have taken Harvey. It's not like this year, when the Cubs took a player some other teams would have taken in the 2nd or 3rd round over other guys who were rated higher by most, if not all teams.

 

Feel free to question the Colvin pick all you want, but until the guy flames out in A ball I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, at least initially.

 

So am I. I am giving Wilken the benefit of the doubt.

[BeerHere]

Like I said, the draft is definitly a crapshoot. Hendry has a history of taking high risk/high ceiling players early though and that concerns me. A team with this budget shouldn't spend the money freely just because they can, their is still some projection that needs to happen and a strength/weakness evaluation. I'm not saying that these things didn't happen but the Montanez, Christiansen, Brownlie and Harvey picks suggest an over-emphasis on high risk players early in the draft. If they're the consensus picks, great. Let someone else pick em.

 

I look forward to Wilken's drafts for this very reason, although the Colvin pick has me scratching my head a little as well.

 

What these high risk/high ceiling picks seem to be showing is a lack of development/coaching in the system.

 

The Cubs should take the BPA every time, not avoid him because there's a higher risk in picking him.

 

Monantez is not the same situation as Harvey - he wasn't the BPA and there was a prearranged contract.

 

The Cubs passed on the higher risk Kyle Drabek (BPA, imo) for Tyler Colvin this year.

 

Didn't Drabek have "make up issues"?

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Like I said, the draft is definitly a crapshoot. Hendry has a history of taking high risk/high ceiling players early though and that concerns me. A team with this budget shouldn't spend the money freely just because they can, their is still some projection that needs to happen and a strength/weakness evaluation. I'm not saying that these things didn't happen but the Montanez, Christiansen, Brownlie and Harvey picks suggest an over-emphasis on high risk players early in the draft. If they're the consensus picks, great. Let someone else pick em.

 

I look forward to Wilken's drafts for this very reason, although the Colvin pick has me scratching my head a little as well.

 

What these high risk/high ceiling picks seem to be showing is a lack of development/coaching in the system.

 

The Cubs should take the BPA every time, not avoid him because there's a higher risk in picking him.

 

Monantez is not the same situation as Harvey - he wasn't the BPA and there was a prearranged contract.

 

The Cubs passed on the higher risk Kyle Drabek (BPA, imo) for Tyler Colvin this year.

 

Didn't Drabek have "make up issues"?

 

Yes. As did Milledge and Christensen. The Phillies weren't the only team that felt it wasn't too big a concern, though.

[goonys evil twin]

Agreed. But saying the Cubs could have taken players like Murton, Markakis - even Wood or Billingsley at 6 would have been reaches and would have caused the reaction the Colvin pick created this year. Few teams, if any, would have rated these guys who went lower as higher than Harvey.

 

I think that's a cop-out. First off, guys are not always taken where they should be taken. They are taken where teams think they can justify taking them. Baseball is not a best player available draft, otherwise you would see a straight line down in terms of contracts offered. Secondly, just because a consensus decided A was higher than B, that doesn't mean you can get off scott-free for taking A if B turns out better.

 

 

The draft is not a crapshoot. If it was, nobody would hire scouts to judge players and they'd just pick names out of a hat. There is a skill and thought involved, and the Cubs have repeatedly shown to be lacking in those departments.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

It is more often than not a BPA draft for the teams that don't need to make prearranged deals.

 

I'm not letting Hendry/Stockstill get off scott-free. Player development in this farm system has helped make the Harvey pick a failure (along with a few other high-profile, high-ceiling-with-holes hitters). In a perfect world, the Cubs would improve their development personnel, but at the very least, they should stop taking the high-risk hitters because they know they can't develop them.

[WrigleyField 22]

 

Luis Montanaz, wasn't he the 4th or 5th overall pick? I don't even wanna know who they passed on that year.

 

Why down on Montanaz? He's crushing the ball in AAA this year!

.288 .346 .634

(obp - slg - ops)

[Mephistopheles]

only if the 634 was really his slugging percentage and not his OPS :(

[Jehrico]

I don't care if his BABIP indicates this level of success is likely unattainable. This is one of those cases where common sense has to override the stats.

 

You really should care.

 

I should care that his BABIP indicates he likely won't keep hitting .370 with a .700 slg, or whatever it's been over the last month or so? I don't need BABIP to tell me that. Common sense will tell you that's not sustainable, and that he's going to have his slumps and hot streaks.

 

I care about see guys like him make improvements, adjustments, and grow as they go along, and he's finally showing that. That's more important than anything you'll draw from his BABIP.

 

Also, nice job taking a small part of the quote out of context, while adding nothing to the conversation.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't care if his BABIP indicates this level of success is likely unattainable. This is one of those cases where common sense has to override the stats.

 

You really should care.

 

I should care that his BABIP indicates he likely won't keep hitting .370 with a .700 slg?

 

I care about improvements, adjustments, and growth from prospects, and he's showing that. Stat's aren't everything.

 

Also, nice job taking a small part of the quote out of context, while adding nothing to the conversation.

 

I've said plenty on the topic of Harvey, even in this very thread.

 

You can't just dismiss the fact that Harvey is on a hot streak when there aren't notable peripheral changes to support that. When a player has a hot streak that is almost entirely held up by Balls in Play(In August he's had a better go of it, although his power has returned to previous levels), it's worth pointing out that it's not sustainable and he will return to his previous subpar production without changes in those areas.

 

And while it's true that "stats aren't everything", stats in the right context are very important. Looking beyond the stats should mean trying to find reasons to explain the performance/stats, not discounting the performance/stats out of hand.

[Jehrico]

I don't care if his BABIP indicates this level of success is likely unattainable. This is one of those cases where common sense has to override the stats.

 

You really should care.

 

I should care that his BABIP indicates he likely won't keep hitting .370 with a .700 slg?

 

I care about improvements, adjustments, and growth from prospects, and he's showing that. Stat's aren't everything.

 

Also, nice job taking a small part of the quote out of context, while adding nothing to the conversation.

 

I've said plenty on the topic of Harvey, even in this very thread.

 

You can't just dismiss the fact that Harvey is on a hot streak when there aren't notable peripheral changes to support that. When a player has a hot streak that is almost entirely held up by Balls in Play(In August he's had a better go of it, although his power has returned to previous levels), it's worth pointing out that it's not sustainable and he will return to his previous subpar production without changes in those areas.

 

And while it's true that "stats aren't everything", stats in the right context are very important. Looking beyond the stats should mean trying to find reasons to explain the performance/stats, not discounting the performance/stats out of hand.

 

First, I don't get why some people have to grope for the one stat to find something negative in everything out there. I don't know if you think it makes you look smart or what.

 

Second, when did I dismiss the fact he's on a hot streak? It's pretty obvious that he's not going to be able to maintain this peak he's on over the course of his career. I even stated as much that it was obvious earlier.

 

It's been quoted on here several times that he's shortened his swing, and has looked to have a more patient approach at the plate lately. And while he may not be able to keep up a .700 slg among other things, he has been showing improvement every month of the year since he's started working on shortening his swing. I don't know what more peripheral things you want to explain the anomolies, but that's as much as you can ask for. His BABIP shows he's on a hot streak and will eventually level off. However, it does NOT support your contention that he's going to regress anywhere near as far as you claim he is. It's also more than just a little hot streak, as it's been going on for some time.

 

I don't need you to explain what BABIP is, how it's derived, or what it means. I honestly don't think that you have any idea how to apply it to prospects. This isn't an absolute. Just because Harvey had a horrible last year and started out slow, you're translating a high BABIP as a guaranteed sign that he's going to regress to "previous subpar production." There's a big difference between cooling off, leveling off, and regressing to "previous subpar production." A high BABIP tells you he's on a hot streak, it doesn't tell you what he's going to do when that hot streak ends. There's a reason they have the whole minor league system...it's to work with guys like this, tweak their approach, and help them learn the game. Your application of BABIP completely ignores the natural learning curve that goes on with some of these younger guys in the minors.

[don_kessinger_was_good]

"Stats may not mean everything" as someone posted earlier, but if Harvey can't hit a minor league curveball for his life--and he can't--he has no big league future. None.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

First, I don't get why some people have to grope for the one stat to find something negative in everything out there. I don't know if you think it makes you look smart or what.

 

I don't think you're reading carefully if you think people are looking for negative all the time, especially when it comes to prospects and the posters who consistently post about them.

 

 

It's been quoted on here several times that he's shortened his swing, and has looked to have a more patient approach at the plate lately. And while he may not be able to keep up a .700 slg among other things, he has been showing improvement every month of the year since he's started working on shortening his swing. I don't know what more peripheral things you want to explain the anomolies, but that's as much as you can ask for. His BABIP shows he's on a hot streak and will eventually level off. However, it does NOT support your contention that he's going to regress anywhere near as far as you claim he is. It's also more than just a little hot streak, as it's been going on for some time.

 

I don't need you to explain what BABIP is, how it's derived, or what it means. I honestly don't think that you have any idea how to apply it to prospects. This isn't an absolute. Just because Harvey had a horrible last year and started out slow, you're translating a high BABIP as a guaranteed sign that he's going to regress to "previous subpar production." There's a big difference between cooling off, leveling off, and regressing to "previous subpar production." A high BABIP tells you he's on a hot streak, it doesn't tell you what he's going to do when that hot streak ends. There's a reason they have the whole minor league system...it's to work with guys like this, tweak their approach, and help them learn the game. Your application of BABIP completely ignores the natural learning curve that goes on with some of these younger guys in the minors.

 

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything was an absolute. The peripherals I'm talking about are his plate discipline, walks and K's. That's the stuff that needs improvement, with or without fluctuation in BABIP. Like I said, he's been better in August and he's also had the report of a shorter swing, so maybe he'll be able to build upon that. If he doesn't, then it's not going to matter that he has a shorter swing if he continues to avoid walks and K at that rate. Unless those peripherals improve, then Harvey needs to be a .300+ hitter at the major league level in order to be a worthwhile corner OF. That's where the BABIP comes in, because in all likelihood he's not going to be able to do that.

[Jehrico]

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said anything was an absolute.

...it's worth pointing out that it's not sustainable and he will return to his previous subpar production without changes in those areas.

 

That's not absolute? How am I putting words into your mouth?

 

The peripherals I'm talking about are his plate discipline, walks and K's. That's the stuff that needs improvement, with or without fluctuation in BABIP. Like I said, he's been better in August and he's also had the report of a shorter swing, so maybe he'll be able to build upon that. If he doesn't, then it's not going to matter that he has a shorter swing if he continues to avoid walks and K at that rate. Unless those peripherals improve, then Harvey needs to be a .300+ hitter at the major league level in order to be a worthwhile corner OF. That's where the BABIP comes in, because in all likelihood he's not going to be able to do that.

 

We don't need you to keep regurgitating the same thing over and over. I got it, and I'll tell you I know it at least as well as you. What you don't understand is how to apply it. If Neifi hits ..300 or so in a month with an unusually high BABIP, it's a good bet that it means he had a hot streak and isn't likely to keep it up. Why? Because he's beyond the end of most players learning curves, and he's proven over several years now that he's not modifying his approach. His abilities aren't magically going to improve. If Harvey goes through a similar unusual hot streak, you can't draw the same conclusions as Neifi, because there's alot more variables. That's why you're abhorrently wrong when you stated that he WILL return to his subpar performance, even if he doesn't change in all of the places you want him to. Granted, he's not going to be as good as he could be if he doesn't try to adopt more of a Dunn-like approach at the plate. But that doesn't mean that closing a hole in his swing, even with the same horrible approach as before, will yield positive results. The high BABIP in no way means he will return to the same production as before...only that the peak is an anomaly, and he'll regress to some level. The happy median between where he was and where he is now would be an outstanding improvement over what he did last year.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

We don't need you to keep regurgitating the same thing over and over. I got it, and I'll tell you I know it at least as well as you. What you don't understand is how to apply it. If Neifi hits ..300 or so in a month with an unusually high BABIP, it's a good bet that it means he had a hot streak and isn't likely to keep it up. Why? Because he's beyond the end of most players learning curves, and he's proven over several years now that he's not modifying his approach. His abilities aren't magically going to improve. If Harvey goes through a similar unusual hot streak, you can't draw the same conclusions as Neifi, because there's alot more variables.

 

This is exactly the point. If the peripherals don't show any change, then yes, it is the same as Neifi going through a hot streak. Maybe it means he's showing a little better ability to hit for average(too bad we don't have access to type of batted ball data, BK?), but as it pertains to Harvey, he'd need a lot more than that to compensate for his still poor plate discipline.

 

 

That's why you're abhorrently wrong when you stated that he WILL return to his subpar performance, even if he doesn't change in all of the places you want him to. Granted, he's not going to be as good as he could be if he doesn't try to adopt more of a Dunn-like approach at the plate. But that doesn't mean that closing a hole in his swing, even with the same horrible approach as before, will yield positive results. The high BABIP in no way means he will return to the same production as before...only that the peak is an anomaly, and he'll regress to some level. The happy median between where he was and where he is now would be an outstanding improvement over what he did last year.

 

Do you really think Harvey is going to become a .300 level hitter(or to word it without an arbitrary number, be significantly better at hitting for average) because of this adjustment? If you do, then we're just going to fundamentally disagree. Otherwise we're arguing a matter of degrees that he's going to improve without any changes in his BB's and K's.

[UBlink]

Would his trend in LD% be indicative of a change that might be sustainable?

 

Apr 5.6

May 7.1

Jun 12.2

Jul 16.7

Aug 14.5

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Would his trend in LD% be indicative of a change that might be sustainable?

 

Apr 5.6

May 7.1

Jun 12.2

Jul 16.7

Aug 14.5

 

Where'd you get the numbers? That's good stuff.

 

Unfortunately, those percentages don't bode well for Harvey. In general, a player's BABIP should be roughly 110 points over their LD %(not an absolute by any sense, but a guideline. For example, speedy players often outperform their expected BABIP). Even in his hot months Harvey doesn't seem to be hitting all that many line drives(with an expected BABIP well under .300). On the plus side, his April-June LD% are so low it's scary, and hopefully flukish.

[CubsWin]

Would his trend in LD% be indicative of a change that might be sustainable?

 

Apr 5.6

May 7.1

Jun 12.2

Jul 16.7

Aug 14.5

That's been my take on things. His swing adjustment seems to be driving his current level of performance more than good luck or simply just a hot streak. Is he also getting lucky with more than the usual amounts of balls in play dropping for hits? Yes. But also, no one believes that he is likely to keep up the pace he has been at in August. But his BABIP wasn't that out of line in July, at least not for a guy making up for some bad luck earlier in the season.

 

I think the statistical and anecdotal evidence clearly shows a high likelihood of Harvey having turned a pretty big corner with this swing adjustment. Does he have further to go? Of course. But luckily, he is still rather young.

 

So far in August, he has struck out 17 times and walked 6 times with 1 HBP in 82 ABs. That's not great, but it is better than any other month this year. Now he just has to continue improving...

[imb]

Would his trend in LD% be indicative of a change that might be sustainable?

 

Apr 5.6

May 7.1

Jun 12.2

Jul 16.7

Aug 14.5

That's been my take on things. His swing adjustment seems to be driving his current level of performance more than good luck or simply just a hot streak. Is he also getting lucky with more than the usual amounts of balls in play dropping for hits? Yes. But also, no one believes that he is likely to keep up the pace he has been at in August. But his BABIP wasn't that out of line in July, at least not for a guy making up for some bad luck earlier in the season.

 

I think the statistical and anecdotal evidence clearly shows a high likelihood of Harvey having turned a pretty big corner with this swing adjustment. Does he have further to go? Of course. But luckily, he is still rather young.

 

So far in August, he has struck out 17 times and walked 6 times with 1 HBP in 82 ABs. That's not great, but it is better than any other month this year. Now he just has to continue improving...

 

Hell, at this rate I'd take 6 walks every 80 at bats. Especially if they can get him to play CF in the majors.

[UBlink]

Would his trend in LD% be indicative of a change that might be sustainable?

 

Apr 5.6

May 7.1

Jun 12.2

Jul 16.7

Aug 14.5

 

Where'd you get the numbers? That's good stuff.

 

 

I did the calculations myself from here and I'm not sure I did them in the same way as those used in your BABIP formula - it's LD's as a percentage of all hit balls - AB - K.