Stewart's Crappy Luck

[Tracer Bullet]

if the two of you can't control yourself, we'll just kick you out for a while. jesus. enough.

[Sammy Sofa]

I DON'T TELL FART JOKES AND I WILL NOT STAND FOR SUCH ACCUSATIONS.

[SouthSideRyan]

I think he already addressed this well-stated argument by saying Stewart was hitting soft line drives, not hard hit balls. But I'm not going back through all of these pages, and his ramblings, to verify that.

 

Oh, and I agree with what you said.

 

Thanks. And it's true that LD% takes hard and soft line drives into account, however all types of line drives (hard and soft) have a 75% chance to land for a hit, according to the Hardball Times. I know you weren't arguing the point, but I thought I'd clarify that either a hard or soft line drive still has a much better chance of falling in for a hit than a flyball or groundball.

 

But he hits nothing but soft line drives or something.

[Guest]

I'm so glad I took the time to catch up on this thread.

 

To those making lucid contributions: I laud your patience.

 

To everyone else: I encourage liberal use of the ignore feature.

[seanimal]

whoever smelt it dealt it

[Guest]

I think he already addressed this well-stated argument by saying Stewart was hitting soft line drives, not hard hit balls. But I'm not going back through all of these pages, and his ramblings, to verify that.

 

Oh, and I agree with what you said.

 

Thanks. And it's true that LD% takes hard and soft line drives into account, however all types of line drives (hard and soft) have a 75% chance to land for a hit, according to the Hardball Times. I know you weren't arguing the point, but I thought I'd clarify that either a hard or soft line drive still has a much better chance of falling in for a hit than a flyball or groundball.

 

Just for clarification, is it that, combined, all LD's have a 75% chance of dropping in for hits (in which case, one - hard or soft - might have better odds than the other), or are do both, individually, have a 75% chance of falling in for hits?

[dew1679666265]

Just for clarification, is it that, combined, all LD's have a 75% chance of dropping in for hits (in which case, one - hard or soft - might have better odds than the other), or are do both, individually, have a 75% chance of falling in for hits?

 

That's a good question. I was going off THT's write-up on it:

 

Line Drive Percentage. Baseball Info Solutions tracks the trajectory of each batted ball and categorizes it as a groundball, fly ball or line drive. LD% is the percent of batted balls that are line drives. Line drives are not necessarily the hardest hit balls, but they do fall for a hit around 75% of the time.

 

That isn't clear whether it's 75% combined, or 75% each.

[neely crenshaw]

Southside,

I am not sure how you took it, but of course I didn't mean he hits nothing but soft line drives. If it came off like that, I didn't mean it that way. He has hit some rockets right at people. In watching almost every game, I see him hit lots of soft grounders and fly balls. I truly don't know where you would find the stats on how hard each contact was, so I am simply going with my feeling. I said in one of a previous post that I could be seeing negative because I expect things to go badly, while you guys are looking at the positives, or potential positives. I was the one that said, "you see what you want to see" that includes me. So if you guys see the bullets being caught, I may focus on the soft grounder to short.

Is that fair?

Also some of you that have posted arguments without insults have at least shown me some hope. I still have a negative feeling on it but I will give you that I feel far less sure about that, and he could reach his norms, or slightly above, Of course this is the cubs and when he does he will probably tear something and miss the last 40 games.

 

So let's see what happens, and revisit this in say the next 150 at bats, say around July 1?

 

And just wondering, why is there no validity in Trumbo's start but there is in Stewart's hot streak? It's a small sample size and he could fall flat on his face but couldn't he keep it up to some extent? Like I said I put a lot of credence into what Scioscia says, not just his PCL stats.

Edited May 24, 2012 by neely crenshaw

[Guest]

 

And just wondering, why is there no validity in Trumbo's start but there is in Stewart's hot streak? It's a small sample size and he could fall flat on his face but couldn't he keep it up to some extent? Like I said I put a lot of credence into what Scioscia says, not just his PCL stats.

 

The optimism about Stewart has little to do with his hot streak (which is moreso being viewed as a hopeful sign that things are turning around) and much more to do with his peripherals. Trumbo's peripherals suggest the opposite.

[neely crenshaw]

 

And just wondering, why is there no validity in Trumbo's start but there is in Stewart's hot streak? It's a small sample size and he could fall flat on his face but couldn't he keep it up to some extent? Like I said I put a lot of credence into what Scioscia says, not just his PCL stats.

 

The optimism about Stewart has little to do with his hot streak (which is moreso being viewed as a hopeful sign that things are turning around) and much more to do with his peripherals. Trumbo's peripherals suggest the opposite.

 

by periperals do you mean his babip and LD% and such?

If so, yes those have to come down, and yes, I see that Stewarts very well could come- I talked about my pessimism over all but I can buy/see the argument.

I simply also see that his(Trumbo) history says some improvement is usual and should/could be expected (not to his current extent). His walks, ob%, ops and overall improvement have always improved with more experience. You mentioned his power and walks. he is heading for 24 hrs. His slugging and OPS have always been high 700's to into the 800's so I am not sure how his power should be questioned, he did hit 29 last year. His walks are up- 3 behind stewart, and heading for about 50 for this year or double last year (and that should not be bothered by babip)

I agree it's a crazy line on his babip. Way above Hamilton and Kemp, I just can't dismiss his other history completely though. I don't think he would make us great. I don't even say let's replace stewart with him. Just an example of how a few posters completely dismiss any theory that they do not agree with or think up themselves.

I do not see how anyone honestly can say that we wouldn't be better off with Trumbo on our roster at a whopping cost of 500k. which is what guys like Cardenas, Valbueno, and Mather are making.

The argument has been made, and is understandable that Cardenas is worth the gamble. I can agree but how in go'd name is Trumbo garbage and could not possibly be a value if Cardenas is?

I also find the argument that Scioscia is a meat head tough to buy also.

[sneakypower]

last year Scioscia said Trumbo should be considered for MVP, they weren't going to trade him for Marmol and his bucketful of blown saves

[SouthSideRyan]

last year Scioscia said Trumbo should be considered for MVP, they weren't going to trade him for Marmol and his bucketful of blown saves

 

Tough to buy him as a meathead.

[neely crenshaw]

last year Scioscia said Trumbo should be considered for MVP, they weren't going to trade him for Marmol and his bucketful of blown saves

 

Tough to buy him as a meathead.

 

that could be a good point, however when options are few...ok, it was way wishful thinking but it was january at the time, that's the time to dream! Also factor in that scott downs is closing for them. I remember a team once opun time trading for Antonio Alfonseca because they needed a closer....

[Hawk4Hall]

Ian Stewart doesn't have crappy luck, he's just a crappy baseball player.

[Sammy Sofa]

NAILED IT.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Ian Stewart doesn't have crappy luck, he's just a crappy baseball player.

 

Incorrect.

[MPrior]

Forgive me for not reading the entirety of this thread - it looked like a disaster of a thread, so I skimmed judiciously (i.e., I stopped reading after ~1.5 pages). In any case, I'm sorry if I'm just repeating what's already been said, but here goes:

 

There are some reasons for optimism with Stewart if you look a little deeper into his stats: I think someone earlier pointed out that his K% was a career low, now at 19.0%, down from a career of 27.0%, while his BB% is right about at his career average of ~10%. It turns out that this is substantiated by his plate discipline stats, which are typically the first statistics to stabilize - most notably, his swinging strike % is also a career low of 9.8% (vs a career value of 12.2%; his previous low is 11.5%). The league average SwStr% is 8.8%, which is similar to previous years. He's swinging at 28.6% of pitches outside the strike zone, which is the lowest value he's posted since 2009. His contact rate on pitches out of the strike zone is also a career high, at 64.2%, up from a career value of 53.4% (you could interpret this in a couple of different ways, but at the minimum it corroborates his low SwStr%). His contact rate on pitches in the strike zone is consistent from the last two years, but is still above his career rate (84.8% vs. 81.7%); all this results in a career-high contact rate of 76.5% (vs. 72.5% career).

 

Additionally, his batted ball profile is dramatically different from his career norms (for better or worse), as I think has been discussed already.

 

Sorry for all the wordiness, but the bottom line is that he really does seem to have changed his approach fairly dramatically, and his K% may remain low, and we might see his average climb into the not-terrible range. FWIW, his xBABIP from one calculator is .335, which is a whole hell of a lot better than his current .217.

 

I don't think Stewart is all of a sudden going to be a world beater, but there is reason for optimism that he might become a slightly below league-average 3B bat with really good defense. Which would make him a totally usable major league player that the front office got for basically nothing and at no risk.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well said.

[Rob]

Forgive me for not reading the entirety of this thread - it looked like a disaster of a thread, so I skimmed judiciously (i.e., I stopped reading after ~1.5 pages). In any case, I'm sorry if I'm just repeating what's already been said, but here goes:

 

There are some reasons for optimism with Stewart if you look a little deeper into his stats: I think someone earlier pointed out that his K% was a career low, now at 19.0%, down from a career of 27.0%, while his BB% is right about at his career average of ~10%. It turns out that this is substantiated by his plate discipline stats, which are typically the first statistics to stabilize - most notably, his swinging strike % is also a career low of 9.8% (vs a career value of 12.2%; his previous low is 11.5%). The league average SwStr% is 8.8%, which is similar to previous years. He's swinging at 28.6% of pitches outside the strike zone, which is the lowest value he's posted since 2009. His contact rate on pitches out of the strike zone is also a career high, at 64.2%, up from a career value of 53.4% (you could interpret this in a couple of different ways, but at the minimum it corroborates his low SwStr%). His contact rate on pitches in the strike zone is consistent from the last two years, but is still above his career rate (84.8% vs. 81.7%); all this results in a career-high contact rate of 76.5% (vs. 72.5% career).

 

Additionally, his batted ball profile is dramatically different from his career norms (for better or worse), as I think has been discussed already.

 

Sorry for all the wordiness, but the bottom line is that he really does seem to have changed his approach fairly dramatically, and his K% may remain low, and we might see his average climb into the not-terrible range. FWIW, his xBABIP from one calculator is .335, which is a whole hell of a lot better than his current .217.

 

I don't think Stewart is all of a sudden going to be a world beater, but there is reason for optimism that he might become a slightly below league-average 3B bat with really good defense. Which would make him a totally usable major league player that the front office got for basically nothing and at no risk.

 

Ian Stewart doesn't have crappy luck, he's just a crappy baseball player.

 

I think these two posts sum up the Ian Stewart argument quite well.

[Hawk4Hall]

It doesn't help that Tyler Colvin is playing well for the Rockies right now either. This trade is looking to be very bad one.

[Rizzo Smash]

It doesn't help that Tyler Colvin is playing well for the Rockies right now either. This trade is looking to be very bad one.

Except he doesn't even have 100 at-bats yet. He's been platooning there. Think of the Colvin trade as David DeJesus for Tyler Colvin. DeJesus is the better player and the Cubs needed a 3rd baseman.

[CincyCubsFan]

You're right, Colvin is absolutely the missing link this year.

[Sammy Sofa]

It doesn't help that Tyler Colvin is playing well for the Rockies right now either. This trade is looking to be very bad one.

 

That's like thinking the Garza trade was a mistake at the start of last season because of the hot start that Fuld got off to.

[davell]

My thinking is Stewart quits hitting as well as he has been, but gets much luckier and his numbers get better anyway.

[SouthSideRyan]

It doesn't help that Tyler Colvin is playing well for the Rockies right now either. This trade is looking to be very bad one.

 

That's like thinking the Garza trade was a mistake at the start of last season because of the hot start that Fuld got off to.

 

Except Sam Fuld might still be in the majors in 3 years.