Brett Jackson to Cubs by Sept. 1?

[imb]

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.

 

I always do that too, because I'm thinking it's Isolated Patience

[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.

 

I always do that too, because I'm thinking it's Isolated Patience

 

That's exactly what I did. I realized my screw-up when TT pointed out what IsoP was.

[Rob]

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

 

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

 

This is a joke, right?

[CUBZ99]

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

 

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

 

This is a joke, right?

 

I think he was simply asking if that is a popular statistic. Pretty fair question, considering that your average baseball fan is just learning what OBP is.

[Rob]

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

 

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

 

This is a joke, right?

 

I think he was simply asking if that is a popular statistic. Pretty fair question, considering that your average baseball fan is just learning what OBP is.

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

[Prizefight]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

[Garwilly]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

[italianocubsfan7]

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

 

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

 

This is a joke, right?

 

Somewhat, yes. I didn't know what IsoP was until TT told me, but dew actually meant IsoD, which I am familiar with.

[Geech]

Somewhat, yes. I didn't know what IsoP was until TT told me, but dew actually meant IsoD, which I am familiar with.

 

This makes me giggle.

[lumafia]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I think he's referring to SLG.

[lumafia]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

 

Most kids just looked at HRs and doubles to decide who the sluggers were.

 

In order to figure out who walked alot, one would look at the column that showed how many times they walked.

[Prizefight]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

 

I stand corrected if Im really in the minority with this. When I was that young my brain didn't comprehend stats beyond wins, losses homeruns, rbi's and averages

[Rob]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

 

I absolutely did the same things.

[Guest]

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.

He still strikes out too much for the type of hitter he is. He'd benefit from another year in the minors to tighten up his approach a bit. I'd worry about him being exposed in the majors and then go into a bit of a spiral trying to make adjustments too quickly. It might not be a big risk, but it is an entirely unnecessary one.

[Guest]

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.

If you consider the difference between "normal" ability and "RISP" ability to be nil, you'd still expect long-term major leaguers to have a normal distribution around 0.00 with some people on the extreme tails.

 

To be more definitive, you'd need to analyze everyone, find out the shape of the curve and see if there are unexplainable outliers in the data.

[dew1679666265]

He still strikes out too much for the type of hitter he is. He'd benefit from another year in the minors to tighten up his approach a bit. I'd worry about him being exposed in the majors and then go into a bit of a spiral trying to make adjustments too quickly. It might not be a big risk, but it is an entirely unnecessary one.

 

I agree it's not necessary and I'd tend to prefer he not be called up, but it's also not likely that he'd bust if he was called up.

 

I hadn't seen the overall strikeout numbers, though, so thanks for pointing that out.

[flyseye]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

 

Why were you sitting in the attic ?

[MSG T]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

 

Why were you sitting in the attic ?

 

He didn't want his parents to realize they had Alfred Ogilvie for a son and not Kelly Leak.

[biittner77]

Most kids just looked at HRs and doubles to decide who the sluggers were.

 

In order to figure out who walked alot, one would look at the column that showed how many times they walked.

 

Also sportswriters.The difference being that they never look at walks.

[hawkeyecub]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

 

I stand corrected if Im really in the minority with this. When I was that young my brain didn't comprehend stats beyond wins, losses homeruns, rbi's and averages

 

You're not, you're just the one being honest.

[Tracer Bullet]

 

 

 

Yeah, but 12 year olds all over the country figure this stat out on their own... looking at baseball cards or the stadium displays. It's a basic, basic stat to show power.

 

 

You know some pretty smart 12 year olds who are talking about ISoP

 

I can distinctly remember sitting in my attic with cards laid out and and subtracting AVG from SLG. The best of these would be my "Sluggers" when arranging my cards into batting orders. I had no idea it had a name, it just seemed like something worth doing.

 

I'd also subtract AVG from OBP to "see who walked alot" amongst those with decent averages. EDIT: This may have been later.

 

Thinking back, I imagine lots of kids did very similar things.

 

I absolutely did the same things.

 

I can imagine kids looking at SLG, in addition to HRs or doubles or RBI to determine who the big sluggers were. I can't imagine too many kids thinking about the formula for SLG, AVG, etc, and isolating singles to determine which hitters relied on a high number of singles to boost their SLG let alone taking the next step and comparing this isolated power across teams to determine what a "good" differential would be (without which, subtracting AVG from SLG would be meaningless).

[Guest]

Me neither, unless the kid had Asperber's Syndrome and was some sort of a savant. I was about into baseball cards as any kid I could imagine, and I nor any of my friends ever gave it a thought. We use to obsess about baseball cards. We made up games with the backs of cards and advanced statistical analysis was never even thought about.

 

I had sacks and sacks full of cards all bundled and wrapped with rubber bands and my mom threw them out and all my matchbox cars when I went to college. I could have murdered her.

[jiml60]

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

 

Joe Crede! Joe Crede! Joe Crede!

[Guest]

Obviously, most of you never played this as kids:

 

http://www.strat-o-matic.com/

[UK1679666180]

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?

 

Give him time, he still needs to get better routes on the baseball and has adequate speed for CF. Offensively, he has the bat speed and raw power but still has to adjust his approach in various counts. It looked last year as if he was too much of a guess hitter.

 

Fwiw, don't be insulted by some of the comments as far as not knowing IsoP, IsoD, etc. it reflects more on them.