craig

Kepley up to .313/.494/.443/.937, with 23/24 SB. BABIP at ~.370.

3 more SB for Kepley through 6. 22/1 SB/CS, that's a useful ratio.

Thanks for that McGwire clip. That was was very impressive, lots of varying movement. Wasn't just overpowering guys.

On Kepley, I think the BABIP will be really important. BABIP, like all hitting numbers, is lower with 2 strikes than with none or one. As a line-drive contact guy with speed, one might think he could support a good BABIP. As a guy facing an inordinate ratio of 2-strike counts, his BABIP could be relatively low. Likewise the K-rate will be really important. He can be a nice contact guy, but putting yourself into 2-strike counts, better pitchers should K him more and more. Just to play with some numbers. BABIP .300; K 20% of AB (for my math, I'm doing it relative to AB, not PA); 0 HR => BA .240. Supposed 75 BB/HBP vs 500AB => .339 OBP. BABIP .300; K 15% of AB; 0 HR => BA .255. BABIP .280; K 20% of AB; 0 HR => BA .224. BABIP .320, K 15% of AB; 5 HR (in 500 AB) => .282 BA. Suppose 75 BB/HBP vs 500AB => .376 OBP. I'm just tinkering around for my own fun. But it's a reminder that stats can swing a LOT on BABIP, K-rate, and even a few HRs.

It's kinda funny having Mathis and Kepley both getting referenced. I haven't tracked that discussion, I guess, so don't know where you guys are going with that. Such contrasting guys, a big DH/1B HR-slugger and a short speed/defense no-HR guy, they don't seem in the same world. Both share 2nd-round. I guess the commonality between Mathis, Kepley, and Hartshorn is the deep-count, take-strikes, walk-oriented approach. So I guess some of the same questions, both developmental and strategic, apply. Strategically, do the extra walks and the selective hitting outweigh the consequences of facing more 2-strike counts? Developmentally, is swinging at pitches I like best developmentally, or should I practice hitting strikes I don't like, because that's what big-league pitchers will mostly try to throw?

Bertz, I'm not sure about the "too passive" stuff, think your points are VERY well taken. Couple thoughts: Passive: If "passive" is just an approach pejorative, I agree that's meaningless. Guy has barely 200 A-ball AB's, the easiest developmental adjustment in the game is to swing more, swing earlier. "I'll plan to swing at the first pitch if it's a strike today" is the simplest adjustment in the game, *if* doing so would actually be to his advantage. "Passive" = holes? For Longenhagen, "passive" may be code for "holes in strike zone?" The scouting concern isn't the swing frequency, it's the concern that he takes so many strikes because there are too many sectors that he can't handle. It's that his existing swing can't effectively hit enough of the strike zone; so he's taking lots of strikes because he doesn't have the ability to hit those strikes. The scouting/projection concerns may be the perceived holes in his strike zone which cause so many takes? Developmental: Maybe if he was more aggressive, he'd get better developmental practice hitting pitches that aren't in his best sectors? Which could hypothetically pay off at higher levels, such as the National League? *IF* he's got too many holes, perhaps developmentally he'd be well served to still practice hitting those and covering those, even if for now that may not help his stats? 2-strike hitting: Not many guys have great slug on 2-strike pitches. As excellent as are his current hitting numbers, might they be even better if he was smashing more first-pitch strikes? Maybe not taking so many strikes, would result in: decline in walks and K's; increase in BABIP, BA, HR's, and slug? As good as slug is, might it get even higher? Guess-hitting: Most big-league sluggers do some guess-hitting, and sometimes guess wrong. Maybe doing more intelligent guess-hitting might boost HR even if it came at the expense of a higher swing-strike %? I'm not arguing so, I have no idea. Just trying to think and process thoughts! :):)

The Mathis thing seems a bit like Hartshorn, too. Yeah, kinda mixed on it. Having a good eye, and knowing your game so you know what you can drive, that makes good sense. But seems to me that if drive-hunting for in sub-sections, A-ball guys will hang enough and mis-locate that you can maybe get a statistically appealing power production in A. But if you don't learn to hit other sectors of the zone, by the time you reach the majors, scouting reports will have you mapped, and pitchers will target the sectors you don't like. Not sure it will project great.

Love the Mathis power! Keep those HR's coming, Cole. He didn't get full extension on this one, quick hands to pull his hands in. Who knows how it will go against better pitching. But Mathis reminds me of how glad I am that NL added the DH. Average up to .269 SB, .282 combined; OBP .415 SB, .439 combined; OPS .973 SB, 1.087 combined. Seems to have settled in and gotten hot for South Bend, hope he can sustain. Very fun. Glad we've got Kantro for another draft this summer, and with an extra top-100 pick. Hope they can keep Kantro longer, but I'm going to enjoy it while we've got him, even if that may not be for lots longer.

Simple: let him continue to play/develop at Iowa. That he's changes his launch angle, FB/GB, and HR frequency reflects that he's still in developmental phase. Iowa remains good for trying to optimize swing decisions and contact capacity. Leave him alone and let him develop. After that, it's kinda out of Cubs control? Will he improve enough to develop trade value? If so, great, trade him. But Kevin needs to earn a trade, and other teams to scout his value. Cubs can't make him better or make teams want him, they just wait and hope. Cubs also don't control Ramirez, Rojas, Triantos, Shaw, Kepley, Conrad, or what their trade values will be. Decisions with Kevin are impacted by progress and Cub-analysis with those guys. HR's have value; Kevin has been good platoon. *IF* he earns neither a trade nor a starting opportunity, having a bench/platoon future might work, who knows? Again we wait and see over time. No need to write him in as a starter or write him off if you don't. Guys with bad contact and long swings, that rarely goes away. Fair chance he'll never be more than a 4A, and the Cubs will never get much value. But, only time will tell, so for now we wait and hope. We do have other internal options for starting, plus we have considerable spending capacity. Between Seiya, Happ, and FA, there is no obligation to go with a prospect, *if* they don't have a prospect they like a lot. And there are enough prospects that they can do some mix-and-match. Likewise it's also possible that *IF* they go internal, that next year's guy doesn't need to be the long-term. For example, maybe Conrad gets healthy and ends up being long-term guy, but isn't ready to even share a spot until next July or the following season. Who knows?

Thanks for link, that's a good and deep scouting review. Lots of helpful insights.

He's got a lot of K's. 16K/46AB, that could reflect some problems. But, hopefully he'll continue to learn and improve and will be able to trim that at least a little.

Where are you sourcing box score info for these games? I'm not seeing them in the normal milb.com sources. Or https://www.mlb.com/milb/arizona-complex. I'm thinking not Az Phil, based on reference to pitch/strike counts.

McGwire got in two innings before the weather, 22/16 P/strikes, 3K's, one HR. Having him stack some appearances with a bunch of strikes, that's fun.

Yeah, Jason, agree to disagree a little! :):). (Fun to discuss!) Of course, any low prospect, it's going to depend on whether they can actually hit, and most won't. So from that sense, Bretower, Cruz, Rosario, Mathis, Hartshorn, Conrad, you can kinda all throw them into the same "well, if they hit" basket. I'm just suggesting that a senior-sign 8th-round sub-slot DH who never hit for actual game-power in college, I'd put him into a different "well, if they hit" basket than a 3rd-round 18-year-old with ceiling!!! For Cruz, you posted a scouting report basically written up from when he was 17. (They had no basis to change it entering his 2025 debut season.). Part of D+D is that 17-year-olds can make develop, perhaps more easily than 23-year-olds. Heh heh, part of my mindset is that I have pretty strong respect for Kantro's drafting! :):) When he spends a 3rd on a guy, or spends two million (Hartshorn) or $1.6 (Wing), I immediately put them into very different baskets than sub-slot senior-sign type guys. I've developed a somewhat blind faith in Kantro's pick logic! :):) I'd also kinda differentiate an ancient back-of-bullpen rental like Rodgers from Siroka. Very different values. Obviously Siroka instantly got reinjured, and ended up being worthless. But Hoyer saw him as a rotation starter in his 20's, who might help reach and succeed in the 2025 playoffs, and who might well be an extension candidate *if* we liked what we saw and he liked his experience here pitching in front of our defense. Again, I'm exaggerating the nuance, but I don't think Siroka/Rodgers were any more equivalent as acquisitions than Cruz, Rosario, or Bretower were as trade pieces. Just as tangent: I didn't complain about the Rosario trade at the time.

I get the point. I do think Cruz is in a different world from Rosario, much less Bretower. Bretower was an ancient K-machine whose contact problems had been sustained over many years, and whose contact problems were too severe to even hit many HR's in college. Totally different. Rosario played low-A at age 20, and had K'd almost 40% of his AB at age 20 in Myrtle over a full season. His K-problem was pretty well established. Cruz has just barely turned 19, is at A+, did not have notable K problem in rookie last year, and has only 51 AB this season. Completely different prospect. For sure, K's may end up killing him, they do for most prospects. But the SSS does not have nearly the same red flags as for old-guy-no-game-power Bretower, or for older Rosario with time-established K-problem red flags. Cruz was a way better prospect then, and now.