The Junior Lake thread

[jersey cubs fan]

I don't get the negative on Lake. He's 23. He has hit at every level of the minors..pretty much at the same rate=270 to 300 BA with 750 ops. His first year at A and AA were a little lower but he rebounded the next and posted his career norms. He had a nice small sample in his first run in the bigs. Why is it crazy to think he can't progress to his minor league norms? He may not but it's not crazy by any stretch.

He is very athletic, he will certainly get better as an outfielder with experience. As a poster said earlier, we are in a perfect spot to see exactly what he is.

I don't think there is a player on the roster that we shouldn't have serious questions/worries about what we will get from them, so we can do is hope for the best.

 

You acknowledge that there is reason enough for serious questions and worries, and that he may not reach even his modest minor league norms in the major, but still don't get the negative on Lake?

[Backtobanks]

As others have said, we're in a perfect spot to let him play, get ABs, and see what he can do. It's not like we're going to be in the middle of a pennant run.

[jersey cubs fan]

The thing is though, he didn't have a good year with the Cubs.

 

I take issue with this part. He did have a good debut. His production was fine. The numbers behind that production strongly indicate he will not be able to maintain the production going forward. But he could start the year hot, and his tools could make it look like a hot start means more than one might think. He's probably going to look pretty bad out there. But that doesn't mean he didn't produce in 2013.

[neely crenshaw]

Any young player is an unknown until the produce at the major league level. It's a big step. history is full of can't miss prospects you never get over the hump....the 4A player if you will. So yes, I understand that there is and should be a question as to what we have in Lake.

I just see stats that are very steady all the way through the minors and think there is a solid chance he'll post something similar when he is up. He may be streaky, but if he posts .750 OPS, he posts .750 OPS.

Heck on this team if he can post .700 in first full season at 23, he's a good addition and could improve from there.

 

Also you should have questions whether every player on our team will reach their mediocre norms.

and .284 with.760 OPs for 64 games is a poor year? I realize it's small sample size but Rizzo had all of 87 games, and no one talked about that being not being "real".

Edited December 13, 2013 by neely crenshaw

[Sammy Sofa]

Man, I love it when neely gets a crush on a player.

 

Nobody is arguing against Lake getting playing time next year; this tangent was just someone clarifying why he thinks Lake's potential is overstated by some.

[Guest]

Respectfully, I'd like to know why knowing the average distance Lake hits the ball is important information? Or the swing and miss stuff is important. Those pieces of information are readily available by looking at SLG, ISO, and k%. It's not necessary to know the average distance a player hits the ball to see he doesn't or does have power. You don't need to know how often he misses a pitch when he has a high K rate. Everyone knows Lake had red flags going forward. The information provided by North adds nothing to what we already know. The information is simply a different means for saying Lake doesnt walk, he strikes out too much, and hasn't hit for power. But the real issue I have is making definitive statements about his future at this point in his career as if he can't get better.

[Rob]

Respectfully, I'd like to know why knowing the average distance Lake hits the ball is important information? Or the swing and miss stuff is important. Those pieces of information are readily available by looking at SLG, ISO, and k%. It's not necessary to know the average distance a player hits the ball to see he doesn't or does have power. You don't need to know how often he misses a pitch when he has a high K rate. Everyone knows Lake had red flags going forward. The information provided by North adds nothing to what we already know. The information is simply a different means for saying Lake doesnt walk, he strikes out too much, and hasn't hit for power. But the real issue I have is making definitive statements about his future at this point in his career as if he can't get better.

 

We could just look at a player's batting average and guess what that player will hit the next year. But instead we look at BABIP, park factors, GB%, LD%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, baserunning and aging curves. There's even some work done trying to adjust for players against whom other teams will employ severe defensive shifts.

 

The minor little peripherals can sometimes signal when there's a fundamental disconnect between what a player showed in a given year and what they can be expected to do going forward.

 

Edit:

 

In this case, Lake had the 36th worst strikeout rate in the majors amongst players with at least 250 PA last season. If that's all you see, it's not the kiss of death (but it doesn't bode well). But when you look closer, his contact percentage was 3rd worst (between Ryan Howard, Chris Carter, Pedro Alvarez, and Carlos Pena). And his swinging strike percentage was 6th worst. It looks like Lake will have to make real progress at the plate just to maintain his current strikeout rate. Improvement would require a pretty epic breakout.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Rob

[Guest]

Respectfully, I'd like to know why knowing the average distance Lake hits the ball is important information? Or the swing and miss stuff is important. Those pieces of information are readily available by looking at SLG, ISO, and k%. It's not necessary to know the average distance a player hits the ball to see he doesn't or does have power. You don't need to know how often he misses a pitch when he has a high K rate. Everyone knows Lake had red flags going forward. The information provided by North adds nothing to what we already know. The information is simply a different means for saying Lake doesnt walk, he strikes out too much, and hasn't hit for power. But the real issue I have is making definitive statements about his future at this point in his career as if he can't get better.

 

We could just look at a player's batting average and guess what that player will hit the next year. But instead we look at BABIP, park factors, GB%, LD%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, baserunning and aging curves. There's even some work done trying to adjust for players against whom other teams will employ severe defensive shifts.

 

The minor little peripherals can sometimes signal when there's a fundamental disconnect between what a player showed in a given year and what they can be expected to do going forward.

Ok, HR/FB tells you everything that average distance a ball flies tells you and more. Information is important and looking at things in a different way can be usefull, but sometimes it's informational minutiae.

 

You can certainly tell how little or great power a guy has, but what's the point? A guy who hits line drives is likely to hit more doubles and triples than a guy who doesn't. But if his average distance on a fly ball is 270 feet, he's not going to hit many HR. that information will show up in many different stats both traditional and advanced.

[North]

Respectfully, I'd like to know why knowing the average distance Lake hits the ball is important information?

 

It plays into his potential to hit the baseball for extra bases. There's a correlation between distance and XBH's. If one were to look at the decline of players, each player sees a proportional relationship to the amount of homers lost with distance lost. We want baseball players to hit the ball further because it means they are squaring up on the ball better, or are getting stronger when compared to past years.

 

Or the swing and miss stuff is important.

 

It goes without an explanation, really. But, the less you hit the ball, the less value you could potentially bring. Contact % needs to be included with the rest of the peripherals to explain his production. We want Lake to hit the ball more in order to get on base more, thereby using his speed on the base-paths as an advantage too. But, he's not doing this.

 

Those pieces of information are readily available by looking at SLG, ISO, and k%.

 

No it's not. SLG, .ISO, and K% sometimes aren't a result of the raw data. Remember, XBH's take about 1650 batted balls to stabilize (which means where variance can be ruled out of the equation). By looking at distance, contact %, etc., we can see if a players production is largely attributed to a talent change. After all, that's what we want to know with Lake; does he have hitting talent?

 

It's not necessary to know the average distance a player hits the ball to see he doesn't or does have power

.

 

There's been murmurings of the potential for Lake to have power. There's also been arguments made that he already has power. The batted ball in play distance shows how much further he needs to go to get the dreamy power. Even then, it needs to be included with the rest to be good at baseball.

 

You don't need to know how often he misses a pitch when he has a high K rate.

 

To find the answer of "to what extent," we need to see how often he misses a pitch.

 

Everyone knows Lake had red flags going forward. The information provided by North adds nothing to what we already know.

 

Sort of, yeah. But, again: context. How bad was Lake? To what extent was he bad? Was his production a result of his skill set? If not, then, what does his current skill set tell us? Why should we believe he significant gets better?

 

But the real issue I have is making definitive statements about his future at this point in his career as if he can't get better.

 

He needs to get A LOT better. Not just a tiny bit. I'm talking changing his approach, changing his mechanics, hoping for a large increase in power, hoping he hits the ball even at a below league average rate.

 

 

I'm not making definitive statements about his future. Rather, showing just how bad he really was when he came up with the Cubs. Lake has been playing baseball for a while now. His current skill set is what got him to the Major Leagues. They aren't little nuances that need to be tweaked. These are large, gaping levels in talent. Levels that need to be had to be good at baseball, and largely inherent for players at this level.

[North]

Any young player is an unknown until the produce at the major league level. It's a big step. history is full of can't miss prospects you never get over the hump....the 4A player if you will. So yes, I understand that there is and should be a question as to what we have in Lake.

I just see stats that are very steady all the way through the minors and think there is a solid chance he'll post something similar when he is up. He may be streaky, but if he posts .750 OPS, he posts .750 OPS.

Heck on this team if he can post .700 in first full season at 23, he's a good addition and could improve from there.

 

Also you should have questions whether every player on our team will reach their mediocre norms.

and .284 with.760 OPs for 64 games is a poor year? I realize it's small sample size but Rizzo had all of 87 games, and no one talked about that being not being "real".

 

Rizzo was impressive. We can get into it, but he's a lot better than Lake for a variety of reasons. Using small samples as the prerogative for improvement holds ground only if the numbers regressed show improvement in production. Unfortunately, that's the opposite for Lake.

[Sammy Sofa]

This guy is great.

[Rob]

Respectfully, I'd like to know why knowing the average distance Lake hits the ball is important information? Or the swing and miss stuff is important. Those pieces of information are readily available by looking at SLG, ISO, and k%. It's not necessary to know the average distance a player hits the ball to see he doesn't or does have power. You don't need to know how often he misses a pitch when he has a high K rate. Everyone knows Lake had red flags going forward. The information provided by North adds nothing to what we already know. The information is simply a different means for saying Lake doesnt walk, he strikes out too much, and hasn't hit for power. But the real issue I have is making definitive statements about his future at this point in his career as if he can't get better.

 

We could just look at a player's batting average and guess what that player will hit the next year. But instead we look at BABIP, park factors, GB%, LD%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, baserunning and aging curves. There's even some work done trying to adjust for players against whom other teams will employ severe defensive shifts.

 

The minor little peripherals can sometimes signal when there's a fundamental disconnect between what a player showed in a given year and what they can be expected to do going forward.

Ok, HR/FB tells you everything that average distance a ball flies tells you and more. Information is important and looking at things in a different way can be usefull, but sometimes it's informational minutiae.

 

Everything people are looking at functions at the very least of indicators of confidence in other data. If a pitcher's SwStr% matches up with their projected strikeout rate, I feel better about that being their real skill level. If a batter's average distance on flyballs matches up with their HR/FB, then we can feel pretty good the wind didn't just take a couple lucky ones into the basket.

 

But when there is a disconnect in the data, it is not informational minutiae at all. Suddenly, that data becomes very relevant for predicting future performances.

 

If you don't care enough to look into all of this stuff that's fine. But acting like we're just being pedantic doesn't change the underlying reality that these numbers can and do matter.

[North]

Respectfully, I'd like to know why knowing the average distance Lake hits the ball is important information? Or the swing and miss stuff is important. Those pieces of information are readily available by looking at SLG, ISO, and k%. It's not necessary to know the average distance a player hits the ball to see he doesn't or does have power. You don't need to know how often he misses a pitch when he has a high K rate. Everyone knows Lake had red flags going forward. The information provided by North adds nothing to what we already know. The information is simply a different means for saying Lake doesnt walk, he strikes out too much, and hasn't hit for power. But the real issue I have is making definitive statements about his future at this point in his career as if he can't get better.

 

We could just look at a player's batting average and guess what that player will hit the next year. But instead we look at BABIP, park factors, GB%, LD%, FB%, IFFB%, HR/FB, baserunning and aging curves. There's even some work done trying to adjust for players against whom other teams will employ severe defensive shifts.

 

The minor little peripherals can sometimes signal when there's a fundamental disconnect between what a player showed in a given year and what they can be expected to do going forward.

Ok, HR/FB tells you everything that average distance a ball flies tells you and more. Information is important and looking at things in a different way can be usefull, but sometimes it's informational minutiae.

 

You can certainly tell how little or great power a guy has, but what's the point? A guy who hits line drives is likely to hit more doubles and triples than a guy who doesn't. But if his average distance on a fly ball is 270 feet, he's not going to hit many HR. that information will show up in many different stats both traditional and advanced.

 

Exactly. We want players to hit the ball more so the variance of XBH's with line drives don't have to be relied upon. Flyballs are the hit type that see the most extra base hits. When we look at HR/FB% and we see a sudden drop in that %, compare it to a constant park factor like xFIP does, and take into account a drop or rise in batted ball distance, it's more insightful to whether or not the lack of homers was his lack of skill.

[North]

This is also some scary [expletive]:

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/aging_curve_wrcp.jpg

 

Look at that. In today's baseball world, large samples indicate the majority of baseball players coming up and producing will not get much better. Counter-intuitive, right? We want an idealsitic change in Junior Lake. I want Junior Lake to be someone else too, believe me. I do.

[Sammy Sofa]

North, quick, tell me something positive about Castro.

[jersey cubs fan]

North, quick, tell me something positive about Castro.

 

And like that, he's gone...

http://25.media.tumblr.com/2baff88e7ae548ffaf02bd99e7e7e558/tumblr_ms2fehEIzr1rawb5do1_500.gif

[North]

North, quick, tell me something positive about Castro.

 

2010-2012.

 

 

 

 

But, Castro was god awful in 2013. Sad :(

[WrigleyField 22]

This guy is great.

FTW

 

North for President of NSBB.

[davell]

This guy is great.

FTW

 

North for President of NSBB.

 

Kind of implied, isn't it? The [expletive] site is named after him, isn't it?

[WrigleyField 22]

This guy is great.

FTW

 

North for President of NSBB.

 

Kind of implied, isn't it? The [expletive] site is named after him, isn't it?

I believes its named after one side of his base ball.

 

 

??

[seanimal]

either way, mr. side is always welcome here

[neely crenshaw]

This is also some scary [expletive]:

 

http://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/aging_curve_wrcp.jpg

 

Look at that. In today's baseball world, large samples indicate the majority of baseball players coming up and producing will not get much better. Counter-intuitive, right? We want an idealsitic change in Junior Lake. I want Junior Lake to be someone else too, believe me. I do.

 

Wouldn't this be equally/or more chilling about Rizzo, who has already had parts of 3 seasons under his belt at could be plateauing at his performance: Or Castro for that matter.

 

As for Lake, are these peripherals similar to what he had in the minors? If so, then he can certainly post similar stats. If not, then you may be right about it being a red flag.

His babip is very high, so that has to fall but he also could adjust some of his misses with seeing pitchers more often and having more scouting on what they may be doing to him out there.

It would certainly be helpful if he's able to be decent/solid

[North]

This is also some scary [expletive]:

 

thttp://cdn.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/aging_curve_wrcp.jpg

 

Look at that. In today's baseball world, large samples indicate the majority of baseball players coming up and producing will not get much better. Counter-intuitive, right? We want an idealsitic change in Junior Lake. I want Junior Lake to be someone else too, believe me. I do.

 

Wouldn't this be equally/or more chilling about Rizzo, who has already had parts of 3 seasons under his belt at could be plateauing at his performance: Or Castro for that matter.

 

As for Lake, are these peripherals similar to what he had in the minors? If so, then he can certainly post similar stats.

If not, then you may be right about it being a red flag.

His babip is very high, so that has to fall but he also could adjust some of his misses with seeing pitchers more often and having more scouting on what they may be doing to him out there.

It would certainly be helpful if he's able to be decent/solid

 

There are cases where players have improved wRC+s and declined in their wRC+; but, the average of negatives and positives seem to be close to zero on charts like that. If we were to use this chart in the literal sense, then, every player aged in their low to mid 20s would have static wOBA's every single year. Obviously, that's not the case. Take for example Rizzo: .350 wOBA 2012 to the .325 wOBA we saw this year. It's not out of the question to attain higher run value or lower run value (probably because of variance, regressed numbers, improvements in small subsets) during this time. Data like this is insightful, but should be contextualized with the rest and taken for what it is- an average of every single professional baseball player. It more points to the fact most MLB players don't improve on their surface, created runs stats.

 

 

Minor league baseball isn't Major League Baseball and we don't have the luxury of exact data like we do in MLB. Lake received 6% less FBs than league average right out of the gate, which is odd for a rookie. They threw the guy 48% fast balls out of the gate. That sucks for him. Bless his heart. I'd be scared shitless out there. Teams picked up on Lake fast that he has piss poor pitch recognition and threw him junk. Pitch recognition tends to be an inherent skill. I mean, the Cubs are trying to implement some type of neurological training for pitch recognition in the lower levels. It's that important. Trout, for example, received 61% fastballs his rookie year. People didn't know how to pitch to Trout and still don't.

 

I did a correlation to BABIP and contact % btw (it was pitcher data but whatever) and found a correlation to be proportional. Higher contact % usually results in a higher BABIP. It was a correlation of .4.

[Guest]

I mean, the Cubs are trying to implement some type of neurological training for pitch recognition in the lower levels.

 

Any additional information on this?

[North]

I mean, the Cubs are trying to implement some type of neurological training for pitch recognition in the lower levels.

 

Any additional information on this?

 

This was posted a long time ago at PSD when Theo came over. A lot of jokes about it saying, "I can play video games too." I can't seem to find who reported it. I'll keep looking.