Brett Jackson

[Hairyducked Idiot]

This thread doesn't have to be about Kyle

[SABR Gamer]

This thread doesn't have to be about Kyle

 

Too late...?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Doesn't have to be too late.

 

Brett Jackson might be the most interesting story on the Cubs right now.

 

First, there's the question of whether he can turn the K's around. If he can get them down to a merely awful level, like 30%, he could be a borderline star player with his complementary skill set. If he can't, he's gone from our No. 1 prospect to huge bust pretty quickly.

 

He might be our starting CF next year, he might be traded, he might be in Iowa. I think if anything he's best suited for a 5th OF role, but that's the least likely scenario.

[SABR Gamer]

Doesn't have to be too late.

 

Brett Jackson might be the most interesting story on the Cubs right now.

 

First, there's the question of whether he can turn the K's around. If he can get them down to a merely awful level, like 30%, he could be a borderline star player with his complementary skill set. If he can't, he's gone from our No. 1 prospect to huge bust pretty quickly.

 

He might be our starting CF next year, he might be traded, he might be in Iowa. I think if anything he's best suited for a 5th OF role, but that's the least likely scenario.

 

He's a long way away from sniffing a 30% K rate. I want him to be good so badly, it's just probably not going to happen.

[davell]

He's lost a lot of luster this year. A trade likely isn't an option, unless we want to sell really low. Of course, it's plausible he's worth even less later. That said, here's hoping his excellent makeup takes over and figures the K thing out enough to where he's a solid player, or gives us a valuable chip to use. In the end, I figure we'll give him a legit chance next year. CF is probably his to lose. I just hope he doesn't blow it.

[SABR Gamer]

He's lost a lot of luster this year. A trade likely isn't an option, unless we want to sell really low. Of course, it's plausible he's worth even less later. That said, here's hoping his excellent makeup takes over and figures the K thing out enough to where he's a solid player, or gives us a valuable chip to use. In the end, I figure we'll give him a legit chance next year. CF is probably his to lose. I just hope he doesn't blow it.

 

I am with you, because he has so many intriguing skills that would turn him into a star (as previously said) if he can get his K rate to be merely bad. The problem is that his K rate is an astronomical issue, it's just terrible. What are the chances that Brett has a mechanical issue that can be tweaked and cut down 12%+ off of his K rate? I doubt it is unprecedented, but I would guess it is nearly impossible to pull off, especially for a guy with Brett's track record with striking out. This isn't taking a guy from 20% down to around 14% (which I assume would also be difficult to pull off), he's in the record breaking K rate zone. Rizzo dropped his significantly (cut his ML rate in half, dropped from 21-22 in the minors to 16) but even that is a small drop compared to what we are hoping for from Brett.

[sneakypower]

Rizzo dropped his significantly (cut his ML rate in half, dropped from 21-22 in the minors to 16) but even that is a small drop compared to what we are hoping for from Brett.

Rizzo cut his rate 14% from last year

[davell]

Yeah, Rizzo's major league K rate was a tad over 30% last year.

[treebird]

Rizzo dropped his significantly (cut his ML rate in half, dropped from 21-22 in the minors to 16) but even that is a small drop compared to what we are hoping for from Brett.

Rizzo cut his rate 14% from last year

 

i don't believe that's correct, everyone knows that once you hit 60 PA your numbers normalize and you can make permanent judgments about players

[El Duderino]

Petco is a bad K park.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

i don't believe that's correct, everyone knows that once you hit 60 PA your numbers normalize and you can make permanent judgments about players

 

Though I know this isn't any real attempt at baseball conversation, I'll treat it as such. The point was never that players can't change. It was that 60 PAs is enough to smooth out sample size concerns so that you know you are getting a pretty good luck at a player's current ability level.

 

2 home runs in 60 PAs doesn't really tell you much about whether a guy is currently a 40 HR hitter or a 10 HR hitter. But K-rate is subject to a lot less variance, so that after 60 PAs you have a very good idea about the player's current abilities.

 

That doesn't mean that he can't make an adjustment and change.

 

Brett Jackson's 40% K-rate in his first 60 PAs wasn't a sample-size-induced variance fluke. It was his current ability, as evidenced by his next 60 PAs. A lot of nice numbers in mid-August were variance flukes, as evidenced by how they've stabilized in his next 60 PAs.

 

He can always change and become a better hitter. But this is who he is right now.

[Sammy Sofa]

But this is who he is right now.

 

WSR-worthy.

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh, hey, shocker that Kyle is setting the stage for some gigantic waffling if he sees the opportunity.

[El Duderino]

God, he's even got it in his location now.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Oh, hey, shocker that Kyle is setting the stage for some gigantic waffling if he sees the opportunity.

 

Just preventing a tedious semantic argument over the difference between whether opining that Brett Jackson doesn't seem likely to improve is the same as saying "he can't improve."

[Guest]

Funny that even when Kyle correctly talks about how to interpret sample size variation for different statistics that he gets jumped on.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Funny that even when Kyle correctly talks about how to interpret sample size variation for different statistics that he gets jumped on.

 

This thread doesn't have to be about me, Tim. Keep it on topic, please.

[Sammy Sofa]

Funny that even when Kyle correctly talks about how to interpret sample size variation for different statistics that he gets jumped on.

 

The Cubs are going to stink on ice and up the butt for the next year, so we need something to pass the time.

[El Duderino]

The Cougars need to get a TV deal with WGN for next year.

[SABR Gamer]

Rizzo dropped his significantly (cut his ML rate in half, dropped from 21-22 in the minors to 16) but even that is a small drop compared to what we are hoping for from Brett.

Rizzo cut his rate 14% from last year

 

Should have spelled out major league. I said he cut his ML (Major League) K rate in half, well almost. I understand that, but Rizzo was much worse than expected last year in his debut, which is part of what allowed the drop to be so drastic this year. Brett is hitting close/closer to what was expected of him coming up. Given his MLEs compared to Rizzo's MLEs, it is much less surprising and to be expected that Rizzo would have his K rate drop at least a few points. Plus, realistically, Rizzo will walk and K more next year than he is now, which will make his K improvement less extreme.

 

I just think that Brett's task is a bit more difficult than Rizzo's, starting with the fact that Anthony is a flat out better hitter than Brett by a good amount, both the past couple years in AAA and clearly at MLB.

 

ETA: Oh yeah, and Brett isn't going from the worst hitters park in the league to one of the best hitting parks for leftys in baseball.

[SABR Gamer]

This thread is basically Kyle being realistic and everyone else getting pissed that he's pointing out a negative fact about their favorite team's top prospect.

 

Everyone needs to be realistic because it will a) help us deal with the likely disappointment of Brett busting (which btw Tim has been calling for a long time now), and b) if he figures it out, it will be even more awesome.

 

We all love what Brett is good at, but his flaws are lethal. If people are expecting him to be better than Corey Patterson (widely considered a disappointment, whether or not that's entirely fair since both sides have somewhat valid arguments), they will likely end up disappointed.

[XZero771679666304]

This thread is basically Kyle being realistic and everyone else getting pissed that he's pointing out a negative fact about their favorite team's top prospect.

 

 

 

Except Jackson isn't the Cubs' top prospect, nor has anyone denied that the strikeouts are a huge concern. Kyle, as he is wont to do, made a few rash and hyperbolic remarks earlier, which got everyone's goat.

 

But things aren't looking too bright for BJax, I'm afraid. Unless there is some heretofore unnoticed mechanical flaw can be found, I'm not optimistic.

[treebird]

This thread is basically Kyle being realistic and everyone else getting pissed that he's pointing out a negative fact about their favorite team's top prospect.

 

 

 

Except Jackson isn't the Cubs' top prospect, nor has anyone denied that the strikeouts are a huge concern. Kyle, as he is wont to do, made a few rash and hyperbolic remarks earlier, which got everyone's goat.

 

But things aren't looking too bright for BJax, I'm afraid. Unless there is some heretofore unnoticed mechanical flaw can be found, I'm not optimistic.

 

agreed completely.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Except Jackson isn't the Cubs' top prospect, nor has anyone denied that the strikeouts are a huge concern. Kyle, as he is wont to do, made a few rash and hyperbolic remarks earlier, which got everyone's goat.

 

Everything I said was dead on and has been proven out. The only goats I get are people who like having their goats gotten.

[Guest]

so in this thread, kyle talks about what we were all talking about in the minor league threads in may