Minor League Discussion & Boxes 5-22-11

[videographer]

Craig, I was not comparing Lake to Soriano as a prospect. Soriano was a $3 million bonus baby with enormous expectations. My comparison was a top of the order, sit on the FB, free-swinging hitter that is less productive anywhere else in the lineup. With the Yankees, Soriano hit 9th or lead-off - minimizing his high strikeouts, low OBP, but still taking advantage of his base stealing abilities (I know, low OBP at the top is an anomaly). Lake is showing a surprising aptitude for SBs, along with hitting for a higher average. This is what made me think of Soriano - success by playing up strengths (hit the FB and speed), while limiting weaknesses (pitch recognition, situational hitting).

 

Also, the defiant part of my assessment was related to his coachability. I have been reading for a couple of years about his stubbornness taking instruction. The highlighting contrast between Lake and Castro has been Castro's willingness to absorb instruction, take notes and self-improve. The word on Lake has been the opposite or close to it.

 

My belief that Lake has aggressive behavior (push to make things happen) stems from his success this year and historically high K totals. Overly aggressive hitters K a great deal. Lake is showing the talent to hit and he is still striking out a lot. Also, base stealing is aggressive by nature. I doubt that Lake is faster than Crawford, yet he has more SBs than Crawford. Maybe the Cub talent evaluators have tapped into Lake's "success" style of play.

 

The bigger question to all this speculation is whether Lake can be a ML regular on a winning team or a sometime highlight player on a losing team. Cubs need winning players - Barney being a good example. Star players are a big part of the success of a team, but winning players do the little things - throw to the right base, catch the ball, advance the runner, take the extra base, knowing how to maintain a lead while pitching, etc. I don't see Lake as a star player, so he has to do the little things that win games.

 

What will he be? I am curious to find out. Of course, this could all be redundant in 6 weeks.

[wvcbxl]

OT: Is Japan even having a season this year? If so, anyone know how Micah Hoffpauirs doing?

 

 

Here you go: after 29 games AVG .235, OBP .283 SLG .490

[craig]

So, is the Vitters 3rd base experiment over? or is his arm sore...?

 

He was at 3B two games ago (Friday's game; he had Saturday off). With Spencer, Ridling, Flaherty and LeMahieu around, there are too many players and not enough IF spots. They all move around.

 

The "move around" thing is more by design than necessity, I think. And I think it's smart, actually, in most cases. Most of the guys at issue are not can't-miss prospects, and are not certain to zoom straight up and be given a starting job. (Unlike Corey Patterson, Bobby Hill, HeeSeop Choi, and Felix Pie). So I think that by the time they reach AA, management intentionally plays them at several positions so that they can more easily make a major-league roster and contribute. I think it makes a lot of sense, myself.

 

There appears to be some limit to this, though. Lemahieu, who I think was one of management's favorite prospects entering the season, has pretty much stuck with 3B/2B. Vitters 3B/1B.

 

But Flaherty has played at 3B only once, and has instead split his starts between 2B, SS, and LF.

 

Part of me thinks that one future scenario would have Flaherty with his power at 3B with Lemahieu with his lesser power at 2B. And since Flaherty is older and more mature, and is having a big year, that he might be a candidate to replace ARam next year. But I don't know how plausible that is, if Flaherty isn't practicing any/much 3B this year.

 

Not sure what management's thinking is. Maybe they've seen Flaherty and Lemahieu, and know that if both of those guys end up starting, that Flaherty at 2nd with Lemahieu at 3B actually better fits them defensively. So even if we instinctively want to put the HR guy at 3rd, it really doesn't fit them best. Maybe they've seen enough of Flaherty at 3B and he doesn't project well there defensively, for whatever reason, I don't know. Maybe the decision was made during the winter, before Flaherty's bat exploded, and at the time they just wanted to focus on what was best for Lemahieu and Vitters, who at the time were viewed as much superior prospects? And they just haven't revisited that decision?

 

But unless something changes with Flaherty's usage, we probably shouldn't include him much in projections for how to replace Aram next spring.

[Little Slide Rooter]

But unless something changes with Flaherty's usage, we probably shouldn't include him much in projections for how to replace Aram next spring.

 

No, but he could definitely be a replacement for DeWitt or Baker in the future.

[craig]

Craig, I was not comparing Lake to Soriano as a prospect. ...My comparison was a top of the order, sit on the FB, free-swinging hitter that is less productive anywhere else in the lineup. ....This is what made me think of Soriano - success by playing up strengths (hit the FB and speed), while limiting weaknesses (pitch recognition, situational hitting).

 

Also, the defiant part of my assessment was related to his coachability. ....

 

The bigger question to all this speculation is whether Lake can be a ML regular on a winning team or a sometime highlight player on a losing team. Cubs need winning players - Barney being a good example. Star players are a big part of the success of a team, but winning players do the little things - throw to the right base, catch the ball, advance the runner, take the extra base, knowing how to maintain a lead while pitching, etc. I don't see Lake as a star player, so he has to do the little things that win games.

 

What will he be? I am curious to find out. Of course, this could all be redundant in 6 weeks.

 

I understand (and understood) the Soriano comp, and I see your point. I was just extending that the type of free-swinging sit-on-the-fastball type with recognition and situational problems is probably going to be a low-average bad hitter. Unless, like Soriano, he hits a goodly amount of HR's. And while Soriano was on my mind, I thought he was a perfect case to illustrate how fast rocket-armed athletes like Lake don't necessarily make good defensive infielders.

 

If Lake "has to do the little things that win games", I don't think that bodes well for Lake. If it's smart and alert that we want, he seems to be way on the opposite end.

 

But, I'm not sure that every contributor needs to be either a star or a "little things" player. A .265BA/18HR/.780-OPS corner player isn't a star, might be frustrating or seem like an underachiever, and might not be very good at the little things, and might not look like his head in the game. But sometimes guys like that are important contributors on winning teams. There are a lot of big-league contributors who are neither stars nor smart and alert, but still offer enough of something to be useful to a winning team.

 

I'm maybe giving up too quickly, but I think it's probably something of a lost cause for him to be a "little things" guy; so if he's going to become useful in some fashion, I still think it will need to either be as a pitcher, or else substantially enabled by a career-enabling volume of HR's.

[Guest]

He needs to improve one or more of the following areas:

 

- improved HR frequency

- improved contact

- improved walk rate

 

If any of those happen, he's probably a quality mlb backup / low market regular

 

If two happen, he's probably a quality starter for any team

 

If three happen, he's a serious all-star level guy.

 

 

Now, I'm not foolish enough to think that the third scenario is at all likely. The most likely scenario is that none develop and he remains a fringe guy.

 

However, Lake is one of the few players in the system that actually has potential to play at that level. He's still a young enough guy that any of the above can happen.

[craig]

I think he probably needs at least two of those things to happen to be able to last as a low-market regular. Or else a really substantial improvement in the contact or power department. (Jumping to a 20-HR guy, that could do it. Dropping his K-rate to 18%, that could do it....)