Brett Jackson to Cubs by Sept. 1?

[italianocubsfan7]

Although the Cubs already have a crowded outfield (likely to lessen w/ a Nady trade by the deadline), it wouldn't be such a bad thing to get a brief look at the major-league level for Brett Jackson. Whether he is in the plans for 2011 or not (and he probably should be with a potential Fukudome trade in the offseason, Colvin position switch/production level) some big league at-bats would benefit him. At this point in time, the only plausible option for Jackson is a Sept. 1 promotion, and with his sprint-like numbers in the minors since being drafted that's a realistic date. Jackson has played mostly center field this spring, but has started games in left and right too.

 

Jackson's 2010 stats:

 

Daytona — .316 avg, 6 hr, 38 rbi, 12 sb, .937 ops,

Tennessee (49 ab's) — .327 avg, 2 hr, 7 rbi, .431 obp, .333 risp

 

Jackson hit a combined .318 last year over three levels.

 

Should the Cubs promote him to the big league squad when the rosters expand come September 1st, or wait a little bit longer?

[Guest]

Jackson isn't on the 40 man roster, and I don't think there's a ton of purpose in adding him to it just to play him once a week in September.

[jersey cubs fan]

Please don't list batting average with RISP on a guy's stat line. It's pointless.

 

I wouldn't have a problem calling him up, but there is very little to be gained by doing so. He won't play. He needs to be added to the 40 man, and it will probably just increase pressure for him to be given a job on opening day next year. I'd rather he not be counted on to play in the majors next year.

[italianocubsfan7]

Please don't list batting average with RISP on a guy's stat line. It's pointless.

 

I wouldn't have a problem calling him up, but there is very little to be gained by doing so. He won't play. He needs to be added to the 40 man, and it will probably just increase pressure for him to be given a job on opening day next year. I'd rather he not be counted on to play in the majors next year.

 

Unless they flat out say they need him to start next year, I don't see why there would be pressure, albeit increased pressure as you stated. The 40-man roster does pose a problem, but the Cubs can always drop someone from that if need be. RISP is sometimes overlooked, and it shouldn't be.

[jersey cubs fan]

Please don't list batting average with RISP on a guy's stat line. It's pointless.

 

I wouldn't have a problem calling him up, but there is very little to be gained by doing so. He won't play. He needs to be added to the 40 man, and it will probably just increase pressure for him to be given a job on opening day next year. I'd rather he not be counted on to play in the majors next year.

 

Unless they flat out say they need him to start next year, I don't see why there would be pressure, albeit increased pressure as you stated. The 40-man roster does pose a problem, but the Cubs can always drop someone from that if need be. RISP is sometimes overlooked, and it shouldn't be.

 

No, it should be.

[italianocubsfan7]

Please don't list batting average with RISP on a guy's stat line. It's pointless.

 

I wouldn't have a problem calling him up, but there is very little to be gained by doing so. He won't play. He needs to be added to the 40 man, and it will probably just increase pressure for him to be given a job on opening day next year. I'd rather he not be counted on to play in the majors next year.

 

Unless they flat out say they need him to start next year, I don't see why there would be pressure, albeit increased pressure as you stated. The 40-man roster does pose a problem, but the Cubs can always drop someone from that if need be. RISP is sometimes overlooked, and it shouldn't be.

 

No, it should be.

 

Why? You're not a fan of players getting hits with runners on second and third?

[Guest]

Please don't list batting average with RISP on a guy's stat line. It's pointless.

 

I wouldn't have a problem calling him up, but there is very little to be gained by doing so. He won't play. He needs to be added to the 40 man, and it will probably just increase pressure for him to be given a job on opening day next year. I'd rather he not be counted on to play in the majors next year.

 

Unless they flat out say they need him to start next year, I don't see why there would be pressure, albeit increased pressure as you stated. The 40-man roster does pose a problem, but the Cubs can always drop someone from that if need be. RISP is sometimes overlooked, and it shouldn't be.

It's not dropping someone off that's bad, it's putting him on that's bad. There's no need to rush. For once I'd love to see the Cubs not over-promote a promising prospect. It may be one of the reasons why so few have panned out. The only guy I can think of who languished was Soto.

 

Edit: Oh boy, RISP?

[CubColtPacer]

Please don't list batting average with RISP on a guy's stat line. It's pointless.

 

I wouldn't have a problem calling him up, but there is very little to be gained by doing so. He won't play. He needs to be added to the 40 man, and it will probably just increase pressure for him to be given a job on opening day next year. I'd rather he not be counted on to play in the majors next year.

 

Unless they flat out say they need him to start next year, I don't see why there would be pressure, albeit increased pressure as you stated. The 40-man roster does pose a problem, but the Cubs can always drop someone from that if need be. RISP is sometimes overlooked, and it shouldn't be.

 

RISP tends to be overlooked because it is good at measuring how valuable a player is that season but it doesn't really tell you anything about what a player will do in the future. So it's useful in determining All-Stars, MVP's, etc., and also useful in figuring out why a team might not have performed the way they should have. But a GM should see it as irrelevant because it's so random and cannot be used as reliable for figuring out what a player will do in the future.

 

If I'm reading the rules right and Jackson would get a 4th option if he is added anytime this year or next, then bringing him up in September is not that big of a deal. There won't be much benefit and the only cost will be that the Cubs will be able to protect one less player for the Rule 5 draft.

[jersey cubs fan]

Why? You're not a fan of players getting hits with runners on second and third?

 

It's nice when a player gets a hit in that situation, it's pointless to focus on anybody's batting average in those situations, to highlight that batting average, and to discuss that batting average as if it's a meaningful description of a player. How well Brett Jackson hit with RISP in a partial season of AA ball tells you absolutely nothing about his future.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why? You're not a fan of players getting hits with runners on second and third?

 

It's largely redundant. If a hitter is a good hitter in general then it's likely they're a good, or at least serviceable, hitter with RISP. It's highly unusual when you have players who are consistently good or useful hitters who are basically randomly not also good or useful with RISP. Those "unclutch good hitters" are essentially myths created by hack sports journalists, radio shows and the meathead fans that eat up their every word (aka A-Rod Syndrome).

[Exile on Waveland]

Oh yeah? ARod. EXPLAIN.

[dew1679666265]

It's not dropping someone off that's bad, it's putting him on that's bad. There's no need to rush. For once I'd love to see the Cubs not over-promote a promising prospect. It may be one of the reasons why so few have panned out. The only guy I can think of who languished was Soto.

 

I'm not advocating calling Jackson up this season (or necessarily even next), but calling a prospect up quickly in and of itself is not rushing a prospect. If a prospect has no real holes in his swing/approach and dominates each level, continuing to promote him aggressively may not be a bad idea. However - and this is where the Cubs have struggled - aggressively promoting prospects with holes in their swings or poor approaches makes it more likely the player will bust.

 

Going purely by the numbers, I don't know that aggressive promotion would really hurt Jackson. I haven't seen his swing, but he has a decent IsoP and has hit very well during his minor league stint.

[Sammy Sofa]

His career .301 .403 .548 .951 line with RISP is all an illllllllllllllllluuuuuuuuusionnnnnnn.

[Rob]

Please don't list batting average with RISP on a guy's stat line. It's pointless.

 

I wouldn't have a problem calling him up, but there is very little to be gained by doing so. He won't play. He needs to be added to the 40 man, and it will probably just increase pressure for him to be given a job on opening day next year. I'd rather he not be counted on to play in the majors next year.

 

Unless they flat out say they need him to start next year, I don't see why there would be pressure, albeit increased pressure as you stated. The 40-man roster does pose a problem, but the Cubs can always drop someone from that if need be. RISP is sometimes overlooked, and it shouldn't be.

 

RISP splits have almost zero predicative power.

 

Great for evaluating what has happened, but it means jack crap going forward.

[CincyCubsFan]

Wow, I sort of expected a link or some sort of source (reliable or not) when I saw the thread title. What was I thinking?

[shnsajax]

Why? You're not a fan of players getting hits with runners on second and third?

 

It's nice when a player gets a hit in that situation, it's pointless to focus on anybody's batting average in those situations, to highlight that batting average, and to discuss that batting average as if it's a meaningful description of a player. How well Brett Jackson hit with RISP in a partial season of AA ball tells you absolutely nothing about his future.

 

I don't mind the stat, but in this case there are only 49 total ab's and with a perfect .333 avg he is probably something like 3-9 with risp and that makes the stat worthless.

[chopsx9]

Why? You're not a fan of players getting hits with runners on second and third?

 

It's largely redundant. If a hitter is a good hitter in general then it's likely they're a good, or at least serviceable, hitter with RISP. It's highly unusual when you have players who are consistently good or useful hitters who are basically randomly not also good or useful with RISP. Those "unclutch good hitters" are essentially myths created by hack sports journalists, radio shows and the meathead fans that eat up their every word (aka A-Rod Syndrome).

 

I am not sure at what point it becomes significant but there are some long tenured players that have pretty big differentials in their runners on/ risp and bases empty stats. Kevin Youklis is over 70 points worse with nobody on in his career. Ortiz, Maglio Ordonez, Bobby Abreu also have pretty big differntials over their careers. Others are pretty much spot on - Jeter I think was almost dead on. Arod is pretty consistent although there is a bit of a drop with RISP and 2 outs - although his seems to be slightly more most players seem to have a bit of a drop. (...well I certainly didn't look at most players)

 

Soriano is better with nobody on by a pretty big margin but that probably has something to do with him batting leadoff so much.

[Sammy Sofa]

Why? You're not a fan of players getting hits with runners on second and third?

 

It's largely redundant. If a hitter is a good hitter in general then it's likely they're a good, or at least serviceable, hitter with RISP. It's highly unusual when you have players who are consistently good or useful hitters who are basically randomly not also good or useful with RISP. Those "unclutch good hitters" are essentially myths created by hack sports journalists, radio shows and the meathead fans that eat up their every word (aka A-Rod Syndrome).

 

I am not sure at what point it becomes significant but there are some long tenured players that have pretty big differentials in their runners on/ risp and bases empty stats. Kevin Youklis is over 70 points worse with nobody on in his career. Ortiz, Maglio Ordonez, Bobby Abreu also have pretty big differntials over their careers. Others are pretty much spot on - Jeter I think was almost dead on. Arod is pretty consistent although there is a bit of a drop with RISP and 2 outs - although his seems to be slightly more most players seem to have a bit of a drop. (...well I certainly didn't look at most players)

 

Soriano is better with nobody on by a pretty big margin but that probably has something to do with him batting leadoff so much.

 

Exactly. It's largely meaningless, in the grand scheme of things. Most of the time significant variation between numbers with nobody on and RISP typically can be chalked up to where the hitter hits or has hit in the lineup and/or is also skewed by the quality of the players around them more so than the player actually hitting significantly different in those situations.

[italianocubsfan7]

Why? You're not a fan of players getting hits with runners on second and third?

 

It's nice when a player gets a hit in that situation, it's pointless to focus on anybody's batting average in those situations, to highlight that batting average, and to discuss that batting average as if it's a meaningful description of a player. How well Brett Jackson hit with RISP in a partial season of AA ball tells you absolutely nothing about his future.

 

Understood, thanks.

[italianocubsfan7]

It's not dropping someone off that's bad, it's putting him on that's bad. There's no need to rush. For once I'd love to see the Cubs not over-promote a promising prospect. It may be one of the reasons why so few have panned out. The only guy I can think of who languished was Soto.

 

I'm not advocating calling Jackson up this season (or necessarily even next), but calling a prospect up quickly in and of itself is not rushing a prospect. If a prospect has no real holes in his swing/approach and dominates each level, continuing to promote him aggressively may not be a bad idea. However - and this is where the Cubs have struggled - aggressively promoting prospects with holes in their swings or poor approaches makes it more likely the player will bust.

 

Going purely by the numbers, I don't know that aggressive promotion would really hurt Jackson. I haven't seen his swing, but he has a decent IsoP and has hit very well during his minor league stint.

 

Well said, dew. Jackson indeed has a short stint in the minors, but has done well. Btw, what is ISOP?

[Guest]

IsoP is Isolated Power. (Slugging percentage minus Batting Average)

[italianocubsfan7]

IsoP is Isolated Power. (Slugging percentage minus Batting Average)

 

The latest that's being used by a statistician near you?

[Drew Doughty]

the latest that's being used by a 4th grade math whiz near you

[abuck1220]

and i think we'd all agree that magglio ordonez will be considered the greatest clutch hitter of this generation.

[dew1679666265]

IsoP is Isolated Power. (Slugging percentage minus Batting Average)

 

I actually meant IsoD there (Isolated Discipline) but confused my letters. He's got really good both, though, for what it's worth.