Regarding Hendry

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

i believe my eyes over some stat that i know nothing about. and no, i dont want to know how its calculated or anything. My eyes and brain tell me the defense is horrible.

 

.

 

Wow...let's criticize something and discount it when we admittedly know nothing about it. :roll:

 

Since we have to trust your eyes over other metrics, can you give me your reference point. What I mean is how many games are you watching weekly that aren't the Cubs? Also what qualifies you to critique defense?

 

did you not read the other 90% of my post? please go back and take a look

 

Well, what if I say my eyes and brain tell me their defense has been adequate. Whose eyes and brain ate telling the truth?

[Tim]

Good teams w/ worse Def Eff (excluding any NL west teams, though they are in contention:

 

Washington

Atlanta

Yankees and Red Sox (they obviously have some pretty good O)

Florida

 

So just 3 good teams. interesting that they are all in the NL East

I'm confused. Are NYY and Boston not good teams? Or do they not count for some reason?

 

It seems to me that they've made a conscious decision to trade defense for offense and it has been a winning formula for them. So why aren't those two teams relevant to this discussion since they've done exactly what people are proposing the Cubs should do?

[DougDascenzo]

So your conclusion is that good teams have good defense and bad teams have bad defense, with a few exceptions? And if we looked at offense, might we find the same thing? If we look at pitching, might we find the same thing?

 

There's a fundamental rule when looking at stats that often gets ignored: don't confuse correlation with causation.

 

So now you are agreeing with my original statement that Def Eff is an irrelevant statistic??

 

or do you still think it's a good indicator of overall defense?

 

Defensive Efficiency was brought up so i am just pointing out that the majority of good teams have better defensive efficiency's than the cubs

 

Im not sure where i implied what you said in your post. As you say, obviously there is a correlation. This would lead me to believe, that we should work to improve the defense, not actively and obviously make it worse by going with a middle infield of Nomar and Walker.

\

 

Boston and New York are american league teams i didn't count them for merely that reason. They also have better, more well rounded offenses than the Cubs

 

IMO it's possible to improve both offensively AND defensively this offseason. However this becomes much more difficult if we retain Walker, as it eliminates the possibility of also bringing the huge, and fairly cheap, bat of Nomar back into the fold.

 

Are you guys saying we shouldn't improve defensively???

 

All im saying is that we should improve defensively, as obviously the majority of teams with elite records, in other words, with a good chance of getting into the playoffs, are better at Defensive Efficiency

Edited September 21, 2005 by DougDascenzo

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So your conclusion is that good teams have good defense and bad teams have bad defense, with a few exceptions? And if we looked at offense, might we find the same thing? If we look at pitching, might we find the same thing?

 

There's a fundamental rule when looking at stats that often gets ignored: don't confuse correlation with causation.

 

So now you are agreeing with my original statement that Def Eff is an irrelevant statistic??

 

or do you still think it's a good indicator of overall defense?

 

Defensive Efficiency was brought up so i am just pointing out that the majority of good teams have better defensive efficiency's than the cubs

 

Im not sure where i implied what you said in your post. As you say, obviously there is a correlation. This would lead me to believe, that we should work to improve the defense, not actively and obviously make it worse by going with a middle infield of Nomar and Walker.

 

But we also need to improve the offense. Improving the defense by jettisoning two of the better offensive performers isn't going to help this team win next season.

[Mizzou]

So your conclusion is that good teams have good defense and bad teams have bad defense, with a few exceptions? And if we looked at offense, might we find the same thing? If we look at pitching, might we find the same thing?

 

There's a fundamental rule when looking at stats that often gets ignored: don't confuse correlation with causation.

 

So now you are agreeing with my original statement that Def Eff is an irrelevant statistic??

 

or do you still think it's a good indicator of overall defense?

 

Defensive Efficiency was brought up so i am just pointing out that the majority of good teams have better defensive efficiency's than the cubs

 

Im not sure where i implied what you said in your post. As you say, obviously there is a correlation. This would lead me to believe, that we should work to improve the defense, not actively and obviously make it worse by going with a middle infield of Nomar and Walker.

 

But we also need to improve the offense. Improving the defense by jettisoning two of the better offensive performers isn't going to help this team win next season.

 

Offense wins games. Defense wins championsh... oh wait, wrong sport.

[Tim]

So your conclusion is that good teams have good defense and bad teams have bad defense, with a few exceptions? And if we looked at offense, might we find the same thing? If we look at pitching, might we find the same thing?

 

There's a fundamental rule when looking at stats that often gets ignored: don't confuse correlation with causation.

 

So now you are agreeing with my original statement that Def Eff is an irrelevant statistic??

 

or do you still think it's a good indicator of overall defense?

 

Defensive Efficiency was brought up so i am just pointing out that the majority of good teams have better defensive efficiency's than the cubs

 

Im not sure where i implied what you said in your post. As you say, obviously there is a correlation. This would lead me to believe, that we should work to improve the defense, not actively and obviously make it worse by going with a middle infield of Nomar and Walker.

Because winning and defense are correlated does not mean that you will necessarily win more if you improve the defense. That is the difference between correlation and causation.

 

Def. efficiency is a relevant stat. So is runs scored. So are ERA, dERA and many other metrics. It is the context and the interactions that have to be understood when trying to say that an improvement in this one stat will help something else.

 

Improving the defense is a noble goal. So is improving the offense. So is improving the pitching. If all three get better, I'd guarantee the overall team improves. However, if you start sacrificing offense to improve the defense, you may not improve the team.

[DougDascenzo]

my last post for a while:

 

Im not saying drop both. Im saying drop one. and pick up better offensive players in the outfield.

Trade for them if you have too.

[Tim]

my last post for a while:

 

Im not saying drop both. Im saying drop one. and pick up better offensive players in the outfield.

Trade for them if you have too.

No response to the boston / ny question?

 

I'm disappointed.

[DougDascenzo]

my last post for a while:

 

Im not saying drop both. Im saying drop one. and pick up better offensive players in the outfield.

Trade for them if you have too.

No response to the boston / ny question?

 

I'm disappointed.

 

i edited it into a post a few back...

 

BTW my plan includes keeping Neifi for a late inning defensive replacement and spot starter for Nomar, or Walker if you are in love with his 2.5 million option or whatever it is.

 

This will be an improvement defensively, and also cheap by utilizing Cedeno. It also will not be any worse offensively than what we've had the majority of this year. Thennn improve the offense in the outfield.

 

I should be GM i swear

[BigbadB]

my last post for a while:

 

Im not saying drop both. Im saying drop one. and pick up better offensive players in the outfield.

Trade for them if you have too.

No response to the boston / ny question?

 

I'm disappointed.

 

i edited it into a post a few back...

 

BTW my plan includes keeping Neifi for a late inning defensive replacement and spot starter for Nomar, or Walker if you are in love with his 2.5 million option or whatever it is.

 

This will be an improvement defensively, and also cheap by utilizing Cedeno. It also will not be any worse offensively than what we've had the majority of this year. Thennn improve the offense in the outfield.

 

I should be GM i swear

 

Not if your idea is to dump Todd Walker for Neifi Perez.

 

If it was all about defense, guys like Jeff Kent and Alfonso Soriano wouldn't have jobs. They are horrible defensively. But, what they provide with the bat more than makes up what they give up defensively. The same can be said for Walker. The offense Walker provides more than makes up for his defensive weakness.

 

This team isn't horrible because of their defense. They are horrible because they keep putting guys like Neifi Perez at the top of the batting order.

 

If you give Dusty Baker someone like Neifi Perez, he'll put him at the top of the batting order. To defend this (which is a defensive move in it's own right and quite possibly a web gem) is to not put players like Neifi Perez on the roster.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

i edited it into a post a few back...

 

BTW my plan includes keeping Neifi for a late inning defensive replacement and spot starter for Nomar, or Walker if you are in love with his 2.5 million option or whatever it is.

 

This will be an improvement defensively, and also cheap by utilizing Cedeno. It also will not be any worse offensively than what we've had the majority of this year. Thennn improve the offense in the outfield.

 

I should be GM i swear

 

No, you shouldn't.

[erik316wttn]

my last post for a while:

 

Im not saying drop both. Im saying drop one. and pick up better offensive players in the outfield.

Trade for them if you have too.

No response to the boston / ny question?

 

I'm disappointed.

 

i edited it into a post a few back...

 

BTW my plan includes keeping Neifi for a late inning defensive replacement and spot starter for Nomar, or Walker if you are in love with his 2.5 million option or whatever it is.

 

This will be an improvement defensively, and also cheap by utilizing Cedeno. It also will not be any worse offensively than what we've had the majority of this year. Thennn improve the offense in the outfield.

 

I should be GM i swear

 

Not if your idea is to dump Todd Walker for Neifi Perez.

 

If it was all about defense, guys like Jeff Kent and Alfonso Soriano wouldn't have jobs. They are horrible defensively. But, what they provide with the bat more than makes up what they give up defensively. The same can be said for Walker. The offense Walker provides more than makes up for his defensive weakness.

 

This team isn't horrible because of their defense. They are horrible because they keep putting guys like Neifi Perez at the top of the batting order.

 

If you give Dusty Baker someone like Neifi Perez, he'll put him at the top of the batting order. To defend this (which is a defensive move in it's own right and quite possibly a web gem) is to not put players like Neifi Perez on the roster.

 

I agree. Neifi will find a job somewhere as a utility infielder. But on a Dusty Baker managed team, he WILL be misused. You can't have him as a temptation on this team next year. You have to ditch him in favor of Cedeno.

 

People have to get this thought out of thier heads that we should replace pretty much everyone we have now (at an offensive hit) in order to upgrade defense.

 

D is not our biggest problem. Our biggest problem is batters who cannot consistently get on base (and a dumbass manager, but that's another post). If we have batters who can get on base, we'll win. At NO time should offense EVER be sacrificed for defense, unless you have such a fantastic offense that you can replace a defensive butcher in the field with an offensive downgrade.

[Backtobanks]

I vote for improving the offense. Most major league players are at least adequate defensively at their positions, while many are well below average offensively. Also, it depends on the position. An error-prone SS is more likely to affect the outcome of a game than an defensively-challenged LF or RF. How many game-saving defensive plays are made in a week compared to game-winning hits?

[marc_foust]

If we do indeed have to drop a middle infielder, why are we keeping the one who has played in only 30 games this year?? Nomar may have better skills than walker, but those skills dont help us from the dl. His power numbers are nice to have but only when they are actually on the field. Why do you all think that somehow Nomar will actually healthy next year when he has missed half of the season for the last two years? Keep walker who is fairly reliable, cheap, and puts up pretty good numbers. Not the fall apart rabbit who has taken the trib's money to sit at home for the last two years.

[goonys evil twin]

If we do indeed have to drop a middle infielder, why are we keeping the one who has played in only 30 games this year?? Nomar may have better skills than walker, but those skills dont help us from the dl. His power numbers are nice to have but only when they are actually on the field. Why do you all think that somehow Nomar will actually healthy next year when he has missed half of the season for the last two years? Keep walker who is fairly reliable, cheap, and puts up pretty good numbers. Not the fall apart rabbit who has taken the trib's money to sit at home for the last two years.

 

Keep Nomar (if cheap) and Walker, backup them up with Cedeno. That way at least you have a shot at solid production, unlike when you use Neifi, and guarantee yourself a load of crap.

[BigbadB]

If we do indeed have to drop a middle infielder, why are we keeping the one who has played in only 30 games this year?? Nomar may have better skills than walker, but those skills dont help us from the dl. His power numbers are nice to have but only when they are actually on the field. Why do you all think that somehow Nomar will actually healthy next year when he has missed half of the season for the last two years? Keep walker who is fairly reliable, cheap, and puts up pretty good numbers. Not the fall apart rabbit who has taken the trib's money to sit at home for the last two years.

 

For the price he'll cost to resign him, he'll probably be worth the risk. But, you keep Cedeno around in the event he does miss significant time.

 

If Nomar plays all year, you get very good production for the cost.

[erik316wttn]

If we do indeed have to drop a middle infielder, why are we keeping the one who has played in only 30 games this year?? Nomar may have better skills than walker, but those skills dont help us from the dl. His power numbers are nice to have but only when they are actually on the field. Why do you all think that somehow Nomar will actually healthy next year when he has missed half of the season for the last two years? Keep walker who is fairly reliable, cheap, and puts up pretty good numbers. Not the fall apart rabbit who has taken the trib's money to sit at home for the last two years.

 

For the price he'll cost to resign him, he'll probably be worth the risk. But, you keep Cedeno around in the event he does miss significant time.

 

If Nomar plays all year, you get very good production for the cost.

 

You can also put Cedeno at 3B in spring hoping he can replace Aram for a day or two if his groin/hamstring acts up again. He could be a very valuable piece of the 2006 team.

 

Between spelling Aram, Nomar, and Walker for stretches at a time, I think he could get 100 starts or so.

[mg420]

why are the cubs so worried about "rushing" players? andrew & chipper jones, m giles & furcal all came up to play full time when they were 21-24 years old. if murton, cedeno, ep & pie show they are ready at 23-24, why not throw them in and see how they do? there will be some growing pains but most players go through that when they start in the majors regardless of age. i would rather see a group of young, exciting & hungry players learn how to win and make some mistakes than a group of overpaid veterens go through the motions and worry more about their contract than how many wins the team has.

[erik316wttn]

why are the cubs so worried about "rushing" players? andrew & chipper jones, m giles & furcal all came up to play full time when they were 21-24 years old. if murton, cedeno, ep & pie show they are ready at 23-24, why not throw them in and see how they do? there will be some growing pains but most players go through that when they start in the majors regardless of age. i would rather see a group of young, exciting & hungry players learn how to win and make some mistakes than a group of overpaid veterens go through the motions and worry more about their contract than how many wins the team has.

 

Well, Corey Patterson was rushed and look what it did for him. Having two managers who were complete morons in Baylor and Baker didn't do him any favors either, though.

[AAApittsburgh]

why are the cubs so worried about "rushing" players? andrew & chipper jones, m giles & furcal all came up to play full time when they were 21-24 years old. if murton, cedeno, ep & pie show they are ready at 23-24, why not throw them in and see how they do? there will be some growing pains but most players go through that when they start in the majors regardless of age. i would rather see a group of young, exciting & hungry players learn how to win and make some mistakes than a group of overpaid veterens go through the motions and worry more about their contract than how many wins the team has.

And they were all putting up great numbers in the minors with the exception of maybe Furcal. I believe Murton and Cedeno are ready though. EPatt definitely isn't ready, and Pie is at least a year away. You also have to consider who is managing the team. If Cox was managing the Cubs and the Cubs had as good a success rate at developing productive position players as the Braves, maybe it wouldn't be as big a deal.

[mg420]

why are the cubs so worried about "rushing" players? andrew & chipper jones, m giles & furcal all came up to play full time when they were 21-24 years old. if murton, cedeno, ep & pie show they are ready at 23-24, why not throw them in and see how they do? there will be some growing pains but most players go through that when they start in the majors regardless of age. i would rather see a group of young, exciting & hungry players learn how to win and make some mistakes than a group of overpaid veterens go through the motions and worry more about their contract than how many wins the team has.

 

Well, Corey Patterson was rushed and look what it did for him. Having two managers who were complete morons in Baylor and Baker didn't do him any favors either, though.

 

i dont think corey was rushed. he did better a few years ago when he first came up than he has done the past few years. his unwillingness to learn the strike zone, not swing at unittable pitches (especially high fastballs) and not try to hit a home run every ab has been his downfall imo. i agree about baker & baylor not helping matters. i wonder what he could have been (will be) for a team like the braves or the nationals. it amazes me that guys like the farns are head cases in chicago and go on to dominate for other teams. i guess there is a reason why the braves have won the division 14 years in a row but i wish the cubs could find some of that mojo with their young players.

[erik316wttn]

why are the cubs so worried about "rushing" players? andrew & chipper jones, m giles & furcal all came up to play full time when they were 21-24 years old. if murton, cedeno, ep & pie show they are ready at 23-24, why not throw them in and see how they do? there will be some growing pains but most players go through that when they start in the majors regardless of age. i would rather see a group of young, exciting & hungry players learn how to win and make some mistakes than a group of overpaid veterens go through the motions and worry more about their contract than how many wins the team has.

 

Well, Corey Patterson was rushed and look what it did for him. Having two managers who were complete morons in Baylor and Baker didn't do him any favors either, though.

 

i dont think corey was rushed. he did better a few years ago when he first came up than he has done the past few years. his unwillingness to learn the strike zone, not swing at unittable pitches (especially high fastballs) and not try to hit a home run every ab has been his downfall imo. i agree about baker & baylor not helping matters. i wonder what he could have been (will be) for a team like the braves or the nationals. it amazes me that guys like the farns are head cases in chicago and go on to dominate for other teams. i guess there is a reason why the braves have won the division 14 years in a row but i wish the cubs could find some of that mojo with their young players.

 

You can't just simply look at one half of 2003 and say "well, he's done ok since he's been up."

 

No. He hasn't. Take away half of 2003 and he's been a dissapointment no matter how you look at it.

 

He should have learned that strike zone in the minors. He should have had that "you can hit 40 home runs" mentality taken from him in the minors. He should have stood for hours at the plate taking BP, getting a fine every time he swung at an eye-high fastball. He didn't. He was simply not ready for the majors and they brought him up anyway.

 

I agree with you when you say Murton and Cedeno are ready. They are. Pie isn't and we dont want him to turn into Corey 2.0.

[nilodnayr]

why are the cubs so worried about "rushing" players? andrew & chipper jones, m giles & furcal all came up to play full time when they were 21-24 years old. if murton, cedeno, ep & pie show they are ready at 23-24, why not throw them in and see how they do? there will be some growing pains but most players go through that when they start in the majors regardless of age. i would rather see a group of young, exciting & hungry players learn how to win and make some mistakes than a group of overpaid veterens go through the motions and worry more about their contract than how many wins the team has.

 

Chipper was the first selection in the 1990 draft, spent rookie ball plus three years of excelling in the minors and put up over 900 OPS in his AAA year. He had the talent and production. Andruw was a 17 year old in rookie ball, did well, put up 900 OPS the next year in low A, and the next year started in high A, absolutely destroyed the leauge, moved up to AA, destroyed the league even more, spent a few weeks in AAA and destroyed the league even more and was then called up where he didnt do well but showed some power. Spent the whole next year in the majors and put up probably about average numbers for a CF. IMO, the braves could have had him spend another year in the minors they could have had him another year for cheap, but in the minors he showed he could hit in the majors. Marcus Giles destroyed rookie ball, the next year destroyed low A, the next year destroyed high A, the next year nearly destroyed AA, put up similar numbers the next year in AAA and was brought up midseason and played extremely well (at age 23). As mentioned before Furcal didnt have as great of offensive production in the minors, although thats really a result of having no power. He had very good averaqe and was stealing nearly a base a game. And well, his defense speaks for itself and thats all you can ask for in a shortstop. IMO, he too was rushed and they could have kept him in the minors for another year and kept him cheaply. Of the braves you mentioned, 2 were signed out of HS, and 2 were international players signed at 16.

 

Matt Murton was signed from G-tech. Started low A in Boston at 21 and struggled a bit. The next year at high A he was doing pretty well until he was traded in the Nomar deal where he struggled at Daytona. And, well we all know about his year this year. If anything hes been moved along quickly. Cedeno, well he moved along at basically a level a year and just plain sucked offensively until Hendry added him to the 40 man and he broke out in west tenn. Next year he will be on the ML team. They didnt rush him because frankly he showed little promise until last year. Pie has constantly been the youngest player in his league while being moved a level a year. There was talk that he most likely would have come up this year (although he wasnt ready, look at his k/bb) to replace patterson. EPatt was signed as a 22 yr old out of G-tech as well. In his first year of professional baseball he destroyed low A and was called up for the last few weeks of the diamondjaxx run. No way hes close to ready after only one year in low A. Of the cubs you mentioned 2 were signed out of college and both have skipped levels, 2 were international players signed at 17, neither produced until last year and both were supposed to spend (and cedeno did) half a year in the majors this year. Basically the players you mentioned considering circumstances have been treated about the same by the two clubs. Maybe the cubs have been a bit slow on Pie, but we all know that he is not ready. We all love him and hes done well, but look at his minor league numbers and compare them to Andruws.

 

I whole-heartedly disagree with your statment that basically says young guys care about playing the game and older players dont. If you have young talent its better to develope it so it can reach its potential and not fizzle out. Baseball experience is not just baseball experience. There are certain things you learn in the minors and need to gradually experience better competition rather than just being thrown into the fire as you stated.

[mg420]

why are the cubs so worried about "rushing" players? andrew & chipper jones, m giles & furcal all came up to play full time when they were 21-24 years old. if murton, cedeno, ep & pie show they are ready at 23-24, why not throw them in and see how they do? there will be some growing pains but most players go through that when they start in the majors regardless of age. i would rather see a group of young, exciting & hungry players learn how to win and make some mistakes than a group of overpaid veterens go through the motions and worry more about their contract than how many wins the team has.

 

Well, Corey Patterson was rushed and look what it did for him. Having two managers who were complete morons in Baylor and Baker didn't do him any favors either, though.

 

i dont think corey was rushed. he did better a few years ago when he first came up than he has done the past few years. his unwillingness to learn the strike zone, not swing at unittable pitches (especially high fastballs) and not try to hit a home run every ab has been his downfall imo. i agree about baker & baylor not helping matters. i wonder what he could have been (will be) for a team like the braves or the nationals. it amazes me that guys like the farns are head cases in chicago and go on to dominate for other teams. i guess there is a reason why the braves have won the division 14 years in a row but i wish the cubs could find some of that mojo with their young players.

 

You can't just simply look at one half of 2003 and say "well, he's done ok since he's been up."

 

No. He hasn't. Take away half of 2003 and he's been a dissapointment no matter how you look at it.

 

He should have learned that strike zone in the minors. He should have had that "you can hit 40 home runs" mentality taken from him in the minors. He should have stood for hours at the plate taking BP, getting a fine every time he swung at an eye-high fastball. He didn't. He was simply not ready for the majors and they brought him up anyway.

 

I agree with you when you say Murton and Cedeno are ready. They are. Pie isn't and we dont want him to turn into Corey 2.0.

 

i agree that corey has been a dissapointment but his 03 & 04 seasons were decent. the talent is there but either he is too stubborn or he hasn't gotten the coaching he needed in the majors. looking at his minor leage stats i guess he was rushed to the majors. i didnt remember he only had 2 full seasons before getting called up. i also agree that pie isnt ready yet but if he tears up AA next year why not give him a shot in 07? same with with ep.

[craig]

Well, Corey Patterson was rushed and look what it did for him. ...

 

i dont think corey was rushed. ....

 

..Take away half of 2003 and he's been a dissapointment no matter how you look at it.

 

He should have learned that strike zone in the minors. He should have had that "you can hit 40 home runs" mentality taken from him in the minors. He should have stood for hours at the plate taking BP, getting a fine every time he swung at an eye-high fastball....

 

I agree with you when you say Murton and Cedeno are ready. They are. Pie isn't and we dont want him to turn into Corey 2.0.

 

I agree that Murton and Cedeno are ready, and that Pie is not. I also thought that Corey was rushed when he came up.

 

That said: There will never be a definitive answer on why Corey has been a disappointment. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Did the rushing cause the disappointment, or would he have been just as disappointing had they parked him in the minors for an extra three years, and he'd still not have changed much? We'll never know.

 

Your post talks about how he should have practiced and been penalized for swinging at bad balls. Seems to me that while he didn't get $$-penalized in the minors for doing that, he's been essentially penalized every time he's struck out or hit a worthless pop or made an easy out swinging at junk. He's had years of booing and fan complaint and disappointing performance; if all the failure and disappointment and negative reinforcement he's gotten while doing those things in the majors hasn't caused him to correct, why would you assume that some negative reinforcement in the minors would have caused him to correct the problem? I suspect he wants to, but lacks the pitch-recognition/response talent to do so. That could have been as equally true in the minors as in the majors.

 

An analog for Corey is David Kelton. Kelton didn't have the speed or the defense or lefty-ness of Corey, nor quite the good health that Corey has enjoyed. So he wasn't quite as toolsy a runner and wasn't drafted as high. But from the start Kelton was hyped as a great hitting prospect. Corey and Kelton, two great hitting prospects who were drafted at the same time. Corey moved fast ("rushed!"), the other moved very gradually (not rushed at all). Even though he was anything but rushed, Kelton has maintained the same types of problems that Corey has. Kelton K's too much, walks too little, swings at pitches he shouldn't, and isn't able to mash enough of the pitches in the zone. His hitting progress stalled and disappointed in a similar way that Corey's did, even without any "rush" to blame.

 

Kelton didn't fail because he was rushed, but because he just doesn't have it. It may well be that Corey also failed not because he was rushed, but because he just doesn't have it. Of course I can't prove that. But neither can it be proved that Corey's failure is in any way caused by his rate of advancement. We'll never know for sure.

 

But there are other guys who are rushed along who continue to make adjustments and improve even after reaching the majors, who find out that fanning at high fastballs is counterproductive, so they get the negative reinforcement and are able to improve following adjustment. That Corey has been unable to do so may be less about the rush than about Corey's ability.