Minor League Discussion & Boxes 8-27-2006

[Mephistopheles]

Would he happen to be TCR's John Hill?

 

Scott Taylor isn't left-handed.

 

Ughh...I don't know what I was thinking. I guess I was thinking the other Taylor we took that year for a second.

Edited August 28, 2006 by Mephistopheles

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Would he happen to be TCR's John Hill?

 

Maybe, can't tell for sure. I've read a little of John Hill's stuff and it seemed different than Diffusion, but maybe it was the same person with a different style for a different medium.

[Guest]

Would he happen to be TCR's John Hill?

 

Scott Taylor isn't left-handed.

 

Ughh...I don't know what I was thinking. I guess I was thinking the other Taylor we took that year for a second.

Pretty sure that's the case.

[Mephistopheles]

Eh, I just knew John Hill was from England and is big into BABIP and such. He's also been away from TCR for awhile as well.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Chris Walker ties the all-time Jaxx record for hits in a season (142).

 

Jaxx are all tied up at 4 in the bottom of the 6th.

[Jehrico]

That's a pretty strong assertion without anything to back it up. Not that I'm that strong on him, but it's pretty out of line to go ahead and pencil in 3x as many hrs and judge him off of what you think his stats should be.

Welcome to the BABIP/xFIP/xDIPS world. I already backed up my remarks. HR/OFB rates are not consistent. They can be predicted relatively well. If the guy is giving up a lot of flyballs that aren't going for home runs, we can expect him to regress to the average.

 

When analyzing minor league players it is imperative to look at everything in context. Take for instance the HR/FB rates. For Peoria this season the park factor for home runs per outfield flyball has been 1.05. This is in line with past season's HR park factors. In the majors, a flyball is a home run between 11 ad 12 percent of the time. Of course there are different figures for different parks. But if a player's HR/FB is way over their predicted figure, then it's flukishly high. Ditto for under. Over time it's going to regress to the main, just like BABIP.

 

Now, in the minor leagues this is especially vital with leagues such as the California League where the offensive contexts are different. Along with Peoria the next two steps for Taylor will be pitching dominated leagues due to altitude and parks. This will surpress FB's. Now, the definition of a flyball may differentiate here compared to the ones that HBT uses.

 

But here are the league averages for the leagues with Cub full-season affiliates save the PCL. I will put the IL because it doesn't have as many parks in the moutains:

 

6.9% Midwest League

8.0% Florida State League

8.7% Southern League

9.7% International League

 

Remember, the Major Leagues are going to be between 11 and 12 percent. So it's a pretty linear progression moving up about 1 percent at each stop. 7 for the MWL, 8 for the FSL, 9 for the SL, 10 for the IL, and at least 11 for the NL.

 

This is pretty rational. Obviously as you progress through the minors there is going to be a weeding out process, and your HR hitters are the best hitters so they'll survive the cuts. Also many of the players in the lower rungs are young and power is often the last tool to develop, so they strengthen as they progress through the minors.

 

After the normalizing Scott Taylor's HR/FB rate for his home park we get a figure of 4.6%. This is way below the major league rate of 11 percent. This is something that IS a huge concern. It's already 2.3% below the league rate. There is no way humanly possible he keeps this up. He's not a groundball pitcher and he's not a strikeout pitcher.

 

Look at his K rate, it's currently at 4.45 K/9. That's terrible. There are very very few pitchers in the major leagues that could survive for long with a K rate that low. The ones that do are extreme groundball pitchers - Scott Taylor is not one of those. Also, hitters become progressively harder to strikeout as one rises through the system. The K/9 rate in the Midwest League is 7.46 K/9. Again, that's a considerable figure which will more than likely only get worse.

 

Sure he's got a good WHIP, but his HR rate is helping that. His BABIP is certainly helping that. It's 20 points below the league average. Again this should regress to the mean in time. If you want to factor in the extra hits and HRs his WHIP is over 1.30. Factoring in the HRs his ERA is well over 4.00. Keep in mind that the league ERA is in the mid 3's. He's fairly average there. Only two teams in the entire league have ERA's over 4.00.

 

Scott Taylor has two things going for him, he's young and he's got decent control. I'm not even sure it's his control that's good. His stuff doesn't wow me. If you can't miss Low ****ing A bats you won't survive. Right now Scott Taylor's pitching recipe for success is pretty simple. Throw the ball down the middle. Let the weak strenthed Low A hitter hit it as hard as they can in the air, because well it's not going anywhere.

 

I am pretty sure I backed up my assertions sufficiently.

 

The Jaime Moyer comparison to whoever said it wasn't really good. When Moyer was in Low A his ERA was under 2.00 and his K/9 was over 10.0.

 

I wasn't looking for a dissertation, and I'm not wasting my time reading all of that. I don't know why some of you guys feel like educating everyone who doesn't agree with you. It's like you said to open that post, HR/OFB rates are not consistant. You can't just go and assume changes to someone's stats because they lie outside the norm. You can predict with a probability (but not certainty) that someone will trend towards the norm in the future, but you can't just go and judge someone on what you think their stats should be without flukes. Some of his stats are promising, some others aren't. It'd be risky to bank on him keeping it up, but it wouldn't be unprecedented if he did.

[Mephistopheles]

Well if you took the time to read it, you would realize that my argument wasn't just something that was outside the norm. The heart of my argument is that as he progresses through the minors hitters will hit more HRs off him due to the environment he will pitch in.

 

I guess you're right. We should acknowledge that HR/FB rates fluctuate greatly, but tend to regress towards the mean....

 

But we should never take the next step and factor out these inconsistencies.

 

That's real smart. It would be like watching John Doe flip a coin on heads 4 times out of 25 flips. Then expect him to flip it on heads 4 times the next 25 flips. Brilliant

[cuubs4life]

I just noticed that pawelek has thrown 97 innings pitched for his professional career now. any one know his stats for his professional career thus far? they have to be pretty good.

[Jehrico]

Well if you took the time to read it, you would realize that my argument wasn't just something that was outside the norm. The heart of my argument is that as he progresses through the minors hitters will hit more HRs off him due to the environment he will pitch in.

 

I guess you're right. We should acknowledge that HR/FB rates fluctuate greatly, but tend to regress towards the mean....

 

But we should never take the next step and factor out these inconsistencies.

 

That's real smart. It would be like watching John Doe flip a coin on heads 4 times out of 25 flips. Then expect him to flip it on heads 4 times the next 25 flips. Brilliant

He's also 19. You're also discounting any possibility of him putting on any extra bulk/velocity. You're also discounting the learning curve. Right now, I agree, the stats do not support a strong likelihood of him keeping up what he's doing now as he progresses. But your analysis is entirely too one-dimensional. Your coin example doesn't relate to either side of the argument whatsoever, as there's far more variables than what you'll get out of a coin-toss. Your condesencion isn't making you look any smarter either.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I just noticed that pawelek has thrown 97 innings pitched for his professional career now. any one know his stats for his professional career thus far? they have to be pretty good.

 

With today's game, he's at 102 for his career between Mesa and Boise.

 

Here are his stats for this season(not including today's game). If you scroll to the bottom, you can see his stats from last season at Mesa and Boise.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Well if you took the time to read it, you would realize that my argument wasn't just something that was outside the norm. The heart of my argument is that as he progresses through the minors hitters will hit more HRs off him due to the environment he will pitch in.

 

I guess you're right. We should acknowledge that HR/FB rates fluctuate greatly, but tend to regress towards the mean....

 

But we should never take the next step and factor out these inconsistencies.

 

That's real smart. It would be like watching John Doe flip a coin on heads 4 times out of 25 flips. Then expect him to flip it on heads 4 times the next 25 flips. Brilliant

He's also 19. You're also discounting any possibility of him putting on any extra bulk/velocity. You're also discounting the learning curve. Right now, I agree, the stats do not support a strong likelihood of him keeping up what he's doing now as he progresses. But your analysis is entirely too one-dimensional. Your coin example doesn't relate to either side of the argument whatsoever, as there's far more variables than what you'll get out of a coin-toss. Your condesencion isn't making you look any smarter either.

 

KC mentioned Taylor's age as a positive in his post - I took it to mean the exact thing you're pointing out at the beginning of your post.

[cuubs4life]

I just noticed that pawelek has thrown 97 innings pitched for his professional career now. any one know his stats for his professional career thus far? they have to be pretty good.

 

With today's game, he's at 102 for his career between Mesa and Boise.

 

Here are his stats for this season(not including today's game). If you scroll to the bottom, you can see his stats from last season at Mesa and Boise.

 

I am looking for his totals from last year, plus up to this year so far.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

I just noticed that pawelek has thrown 97 innings pitched for his professional career now. any one know his stats for his professional career thus far? they have to be pretty good.

 

With today's game, he's at 102 for his career between Mesa and Boise.

 

Here are his stats for this season(not including today's game). If you scroll to the bottom, you can see his stats from last season at Mesa and Boise.

 

I am looking for his totals from last year, plus up to this year so far.

 

Until this season is over, you're probably not going to find his career minor league totals tabulated to include this season. You'd have to do it yourself - are there any particular stats you're interested in seeing?

 

This is another view of this season and last, thanks to Baseball Cube.

[ChiefsVoice]

Well if you took the time to read it, you would realize that my argument wasn't just something that was outside the norm. The heart of my argument is that as he progresses through the minors hitters will hit more HRs off him due to the environment he will pitch in.

 

I guess you're right. We should acknowledge that HR/FB rates fluctuate greatly, but tend to regress towards the mean....

 

But we should never take the next step and factor out these inconsistencies.

 

That's real smart. It would be like watching John Doe flip a coin on heads 4 times out of 25 flips. Then expect him to flip it on heads 4 times the next 25 flips. Brilliant

 

I think you make some very good points, and i obviously understand all the stats and BAPIP numbers and how they dont measure up to the average. He is not a groundball pitcher or a strikeout pitcher. He does just let these guys hit the ball and doesn't miss a lot of bats. But he is also an innings eater and hasnt been hurt by his stuff this season. Very consistent.

 

However, I think sicne you havent seen Scott pitch, its more than a bit harsh to call him a fluke. He is 19 and just now learning how to pitch. He has come a long way from last year and even from early this season. As soon as he realizes that wasting an 0-2 pitch or a 1-2 pitch is a good thing and that a first pitch fastball should be on the black and not down the chute, i think he has a very high ceiling. As I mentioned earlier, I also think that him getting in better shape will add velocity and strikeouts as it did for Gallagher last off-season. They have the same body shapes right now.

 

Scott is a very cocky kid, not bad cocky, but confident cocky and he doesnt let little things bother him which I think is good especially for a 19 year old at this level. He has had outings that would/have destroyed other pitchers' confidence, including guys that are still on this current team.

 

I'm not saying Scott is a MLBer, but he is the 2nd best starter on this team, 3rd best we've had all season and with his age, if he is willing to listen and learn (I dont know either way if he is) I think he has the mentality to help at the ML level.

 

I'd rank the overall ptichers this way for our current guys:

Atkins

Avery

Taylor

Rayborn

Koerber

[karenmac]

Man, I really would have loved to make it out to the QC today to see two of the top pitching prospects in this organization!

It turned out to be a bit of a disheartening day to watch our Chiefs today. Taylor (especially) did not deserve to lose his game and Atkins pitched pretty well too. I'm hoping we find our offense before the playoffs begin.

[Mephistopheles]

I think you make some very good points, and i obviously understand all the stats and BAPIP numbers and how they dont measure up to the average. He is not a groundball pitcher or a strikeout pitcher. He does just let these guys hit the ball and doesn't miss a lot of bats. But he is also an innings eater and hasnt been hurt by his stuff this season. Very consistent.

 

Eh, innings eater? That's a bit premature. Again, against stronger hitters who hit more HRs off him, I doubt he'd last as long. I've never bought into the innings eater remark. I'd rather a guy give me quality innings than eat them. I guess there's something there if you buy into it.

 

However, I think sicne you havent seen Scott pitch, its more than a bit harsh to call him a fluke. He is 19 and just now learning how to pitch. He has come a long way from last year and even from early this season. As soon as he realizes that wasting an 0-2 pitch or a 1-2 pitch is a good thing and that a first pitch fastball should be on the black and not down the chute, i think he has a very high ceiling. As I mentioned earlier, I also think that him getting in better shape will add velocity and strikeouts as it did for Gallagher last off-season. They have the same body shapes right now.

 

Harsh? Probably. I am a harsh person. I am not all over Donald Veal because Flyballs + Walks = A crap load of runs, K's be damned. Sure, there are some quirks he can learn about pitching. He MIGHT be able to squeak out an additional K or so. He MIGHT be able to get his BB/9 down .5 or so. However, is he going to go from a 4.5 K/9 in a high K league to a 7.5? Not likely. Very very unlikely. If he gains some MPH's that's great. I'd love for him to K more guys...then I would like him. However, I am not going to bank on him doing it. In other words I want to see the MPH's before I 'give him prospect credit' for them. Sure Sean Gallagher took the step up this year, but he's the exception not the rule.

 

Scott is a very cocky kid, not bad cocky, but confident cocky and he doesnt let little things bother him which I think is good especially for a 19 year old at this level. He has had outings that would/have destroyed other pitchers' confidence, including guys that are still on this current team.

 

I don't grade guys on confidence/makeup much in low A. Why? Because they're so far off their tools and production means so much more to their value. Confidence/makeup may make a AAAA player a MLB starter, but it won't make a AA player an MLB starter. It really means little at this point.

 

I'm not saying Scott is a MLBer, but he is the 2nd best starter on this team, 3rd best we've had all season and with his age, if he is willing to listen and learn (I dont know either way if he is) I think he has the mentality to help at the ML level.

 

He could help sure. But can I project a guy who projects to have no K's and should be prone to HRs as a ML starter? No. ML closer? No. ML setup man? MAYBE. ML mopup man? Yes. I am not saying he can't/won't develop into a MLBer. I am just saying he's not a guy I like for reasons I have outlined.

[Mephistopheles]

He's also 19. You're also discounting any possibility of him putting on any extra bulk/velocity. You're also discounting the learning curve. Right now, I agree, the stats do not support a strong likelihood of him keeping up what he's doing now as he progresses. But your analysis is entirely too one-dimensional. Your coin example doesn't relate to either side of the argument whatsoever, as there's far more variables than what you'll get out of a coin-toss. Your condesencion isn't making you look any smarter either.

 

His age is a plus. His makeup his a plus. Everything else isn't except MAYBE command. I am pretty sure my coin is related to the flyball argument. There are only two outcomes of a flyball. It's either a home run, or it's not. When it's not it can be a double or an out, but that's involved with BABIP. Sure he can progess, add velocity and such - but is he going to add a dominant two-seam fastball or a dominant sinker to get the ball on the ground more? Not likely. Year to year groundball to flyball rates are among the most consistent stats in baseball, in some studies they have been shown to be more consistent than things like K's per 9. So when a player starts off as a drastic flyball pitcher, I am inclined to believe that the likelihood of him becoming a groundball pitcher is very, very low. The flyball rate thing is more than likely going to be a thing that's going to haunt him all the way through his career.

 

No, there aren't more flyballs in Low A compared to High A. League G/F rates as you progress through the minors are pretty much the same at every stop, unlike HR/FB, K/9, BABIP, etc.

 

If there is any flaw in my analysis it's that you don't like statistics. I've taken the stats that have the least year-to-year volatility (K/9, BB/9, GB/FB) and shown that in two of the three, he's among the WORST at them. It's not like he's league average in K/9 and GB/FB. He's at the bottom.

[ChiefsVoice]

He could help sure. But can I project a guy who projects to have no K's and should be prone to HRs as a ML starter? No. ML closer? No. ML setup man? MAYBE. ML mopup man? Yes. I am not saying he can't/won't develop into a MLBer. I am just saying he's not a guy I like for reasons I have outlined.

 

Honestly, are there any guys in the Cubs minor league system you like right now? You dont like any of the top pitchers (Veal, Gallagher). What about hitters? Is there anyone at Peoria, Daytona, or West Tenn you are excited about?

 

oh and by the way, great pic under your name....UF Grad here!

[Mephistopheles]

Ooh, big UF fan here. Don't go there though. I go to a small school that you've never heard of. I've been looking at Rice and ND for graduate school but we'll see. I've got a couple years to go.

 

Honestly, are there any guys in the Cubs minor league system you like right now? You dont like any of the top pitchers (Veal, Gallagher). What about hitters? Is there anyone at Peoria, Daytona, or West Tenn you are excited about?

 

Well the Cubs value tools over production. I value production over tools. So obviously there are going to be some differences there. Although in drafting HS players, it's certainly tools over production and nearly the same in college, as there are a lot of differences between them.

 

Where have I ever said I didn't like Veal or Gallagher at all? I think they're solid prospects, but I am not all over either of them. Veal's biggest problem are the walks, he can work that out because he has plus 'stuff'. Gallagher's shown solid command in the past, and has good K rates. So after an adjustment period he can probably improve on the walk totals. I value Ks the most in pitching prospects. Then walks and GB rates about equally. So I don't hate Veal and Gallagher, but they've each got some work to do. Gallagher's stuff is quite a bit better than Taylor's at this point in their careers. He's got middle of the rotation stuff, and rates pre BB AA totals. They do concern me of course. But if there is ever a time for adjusting, its when someone has shown the ability in the past - Taylor has not. Veal's got stuff that's among the best in all the minors, but he's got some stuff to work on.

 

As of right now Veal and Gallagher have a lot more projectability on their stuff AND stats as Taylor. Of course you already knew that. Everyone knows they're better prospects.

 

As for the hitters, eh there's not much there. I shouldn't have to tell you that. The Cubs system has a lot of high potential pitchers based on their stuff, but they have little to do with position prospects. Again, I shouldn't have to tell you that. If a guy doesn't have the stats I like, but has plus stuff - I'd be much more inclined to like their chances of developing. Taylor doesn't fit either of the two at this point in his career. Then again the Cubs organization values things different than me!

 

Actually, I am not stupid enough to do this, but I'd go with:

 

1. Donald Veal

2. Felix Pie

3. Mark Pawelek

4. Sean Gallagher

5. Eric Patterson

 

By not being stupid enough I mean I won't list the Cubs top 5 bases soley on my thoughts. If a lot of players like but I dont, I know I have just my opinion and know that's not always right and I should account for that.

 

The Cubs' system right now is not that good. They are in the bottom third of the league so it should come to no ones surprise that prospects people like are few and far between. Also I'm the most negative person here. If you haven't noticed that yet, just remember that. I am very tough on all prospects. Not just ours ](*,)

[ChiefsVoice]

fair enough! thanks for sharing. I hope Pawelek is that good. Im shocked he hasnt been here yet thought. Thats pretty disappointing if you ask me.

 

Im big on Patterson. Haven't seen many other hitters I do like. Very interested to see what Valdez & Norwood do next year in Daytona...They can both swing it.

[Mephistopheles]

Eh, about Pawelek. He's got the potential for three above average to plus pitches from the left side, which warrants a top five spot in just about any farm system, but while I don't value plus makeup for a prospect way down the food chain, I do think that a bad makeup can mean prospect death way down the food chain.

 

I am not saying Pawly has bad makeup, but eh it makes you wonder at this point. He's also lost a year of advancement because of it. Had he performed well at Peoria. He could be on the A+/AA plan next year that Gallagher took this year. However, I think they will give him a fullseason at Peoria like they did Atkins. Although they may not. Who knows.

[RyCubsFan]

Eh, about Pawelek. He's got the potential for three above average to plus pitches from the left side, which warrants a top five spot in just about any farm system, but while I don't value plus makeup for a prospect way down the food chain, I do think that a bad makeup can mean prospect death way down the food chain.

 

I am not saying Pawly has bad makeup, but eh it makes you wonder at this point. He's also lost a year of advancement because of it. Had he performed well at Peoria. He could be on the A+/AA plan next year that Gallagher took this year. However, I think they will give him a fullseason at Peoria like they did Atkins. Although they may not. Who knows.

 

 

Must have loved Marshall's outing tonight.

 

11 GO/ 7 K's. Only one Fly ball out.

 

Great outing from Sean.

[RichHillIsABeast]

What are your thoughts on Rich Hill, kctigers? :)

[Mephistopheles]

If Hill can locate the fastball and curveball he can be fine. The two pitches are good enough he can be a solid starter without an above average third pitch. He does need at least a show me twoseam or change to righties. Something that fades.

 

He might not be a good fit for the Cubs, as he's prone to flyballs. Send him to Washington and he could be John Patterson 2005.

[RichHillIsABeast]

If Hill can locate the fastball and curveball he can be fine. The two pitches are good enough he can be a solid starter without an above average third pitch. He does need at least a show me twoseam or change to righties. Something that fades.

 

He might not be a good fit for the Cubs, as he's prone to flyballs. Send him to Washington and he could be John Patterson 2005.

 

 

Thanks, dude. I nominate you for forum horse. Stay healthy. 8)