craig

Thanks, Cal. Interesting that Rusin and Belliveau didn't make it, but Logan Watkins of all people is still high 20's. Who knows. With three of the 2nd ten names, here's my guess for other seven names for the 2nd ten: Junior Lake Jay Jackson Reggie Golden Brooks Raley Ben Wells D.J. LeM Robinson Lopez, RHP I'll take a less confident shot at the pool from which the other names in the third ten are drawn: Aaron Kurcz Austin Reed Darwin Barney (is he still eligibile?) Jae-Hoon Ha Kim Jin-Yeong Cam Greathouse Robert Whitenack Brett Wallach Dae-Eun Rhee Nick Struck

Which guys outside of the top ten have been basically numbered, from the chat? A post said they had Chirinos and Castillo at 16-17, and Watkins/Flaherty at 21-22. (I'm shocked that Watkins is still that high. Whatever for, I wonder?) Who else kind of got pegged, whether with exact number of in ballpark area? On Bruce Miles's blog, http://blogs.dailyherald.com/node/5035#comments a poster copied in basically all of the top ten writeups. The Szczur writeup is really Wow. If he's really all that, I think they're going to be willing to offer more than the standing $0.5 to keep him.

For those like me who aren't BA subscribers, any tidbits from the chat would be much appreciated. For example, what did they say about Dallas Beeler? Will he be on the top-30? I know Az Phil liked him, too.

I think it's partly just a reflection of what BA is. It isn't a scouting org, it's basically a go-between that has access to scouts and passes on what scouts tell them. A guy doesn't make #1 pick without the scouts for that team believing. So when BA is reflecting what the scouts think, how can a 1st-round guy not make a top ten? That said, back in the Brownlie draft, I don't think that sandwich Blasco made even the top 25, and sandwich Clanton didn't even make the top 30. That probably speaks to how enthusiastic the Cubs and some scouts were about other prospects back then (perceptions were sky-high back then). And probably about how with other guys to gush about, how little gush attention was spent on those two sandwich picks.

Obviously if BA is popping the Cubs as #8, the inclusion of Caesar and Simpson is not just a reflection that they think we've got a bunch of junk prospects so they had to try somebody. I'm not even a little bit surprised that Simpson was included. If anything, I'm more surprised that he isn't even higher (ahead of Caesar and/or Carpenter). And I don't think it reflects unfavorably on BA, or causes any loss of respect. If anything I think it strengthen's my respect. I think they should be willing to change their rankings with new input, rather than stubbornly sticking with something they had before because they had it before. While he hasn't pitched since the draft, they got input after the draft that they didn't have when they published that list. I respect that they seem to have realized that their earlier listing was probably wrong. Hardly surprising. He was a short kid from a small school, and wasn't on their high-draft radar. I don't imagine all the scouts were buzzing about him. It's almost certain that the spin they got from Wilken post-draft (repeatedly hitting 96-97, good balance, good command of four pitches, good face) was somewhat more enthusiastic than the input they had when they made the list. New input, revise your rankings. Makes perfect and respectable sense to me. Would be stupid and stubborn to not do so. I also think that they know Wilken didn't make that pick on a 2-second whim, that he'd put thought into it. It's well possible that they never talked to more than a couple of scouts about him before that list (guys projected for 5th round or later don't get endless discussion, I don't think), and that none of those discussions was detailed or more than a half minute long. If they'd gotten Wilken's input before the original list, and having know how much time Wilken must have put into it, I'm sure they'd have ranked him WAY higher. Their lists are formed based on input from scouts they respect, and Wilken is one of the scouts they respect a lot. So when Wilken believes, I think they appropriately adjust their ranking accordingly. I think that's always how they operate. If we like Castillo, but they've got some trusted source scout who really doesn't believe, Castillo isn't going to rank very high. they are heavily influenced by their source scouts. It may well be that Dolis is so surprisingly high because one of their source scouts really likes Dolis.

Really? I'd love to get your thoughts, could you explain a little? Did you really, really love Szczur? Or are you pretty uninterested on Dolis?

I think these two posts kind of reflect the crux of how one evaluates Lee. If he's a dinky light-hitting guy, who can't even hit for average because he never gets any HR-hits (which help average) and he K's, that's one thing and it's a very limited thing. Then you're hoping for a lighter-version of Ryan Theriot with a better glove. And Theriot had the average he did because he didn't K. If you have Theriot-power with K's, you're really limited. If that's the projection for Lee offensively, he's not going to be valued much. But other people seem to think that Lee can sting the ball, at least for extra base power, and that while he won't be a 20-HR guy, that 10-HR power is not implausible and extra-base gap strength is within reach. His K-rate wasn't favorable, but perhaps it wasn't awful for a teenager in full-season. It may be that with more strength and more experience, that he'll reduce it. That's the hope, at any rate. Lake as a superior-fielding Hanley Ramirez, that would be pretty cool. I'd be happy with a good-fielding Hanley at 3B, 2B, RF, or LF. We'll see how it goes with Lake's power. When you hit HR's, that justifies a lot of things, like K's, and HR's are hits so it's a lot easier to have a decent batting average when you hit HR's. Tim, I agree 100% that not all tools are equal. If Lake is a serious HR hitter, who cares if Lee is a half-step faster in the 100-yard dash. Lake has been kind of a harvey-whiffer thus far. (>25% K-rate this past season.) Often that reflects some problems that bleed worse against better pitchers. But, he was only 20, so hopefully he'll improve, and if he develops into serious power, all kinds of things are forgiven for HR hitters.

Other interesting things: 1. Guyer as best outfielder. That's pretty encouraging. 2. Chirinos as best defensive catcher, ahead of Castillo.

Thanks for list. Eight of those were locks, one big surprise (Szczur), one small surprise (Dolis). So basically a pretty conservative list. On Dolis, I had him 14th on my list, and I think typically for guys in that 8-15 range, the separation is typically small. You could often rank the 8-15 guys randomly in a different order every day. I had risky low-minors risky position guys Lake, Ha, and Golden all ahead of him, but I can easily see how they'd put a big-armed AA groundballer like Dolis ahead of those guys. They'll have their turns in the top-10 for years if they produce. I'm generally enthused anytime a surprise name, even a small surprise like Dolis, gets included. That typically reflects that BA is hearing some enthusiasm, whether from the Cubs or from some other scouts or both. It may be that we underestimate Dolis's potential and value. He was 22, and had only pitched for 60 innings before his 2009 Daytona season. So he may have considerable improvement still ahead. Velocity and that kind of a groundball anti-HR stuff, that's a good start even if he doesn't have great control or a top K-ball yet. He improved substantially if not fantastically this year: his walk rate dropped by about 25%; his great HR-rate remained excellent even against the stronger AA hitters; and while at Daytona he knocked almost a run off his ERA. I've always assumed he'd end up as a reliever, and I still do. But a strong-armed anti-HR groundballer can be nice to have in the rotation, too. We'll see how he develops this year. Sometimes pitchers can take big steps, and sometimes the offseason is a good time for that to happen. I believe that some of the mechanical or grip adjustments are made during the offseason. And sometimes guys who are prospects because of their velocity, the breaking ball is the last thing to come around. If suddenly Dolis showed up with a sharper and more consistent slider, and a more deceptive and usable change, maybe he'd look like this year's Archer? Szczur surprised me much more. I had him only like 41st on my list. Partly because I expected him to go NFL. But for all the "great athlete" stuff, I didn't really know a lot about him, and some that I did know didn't seem that favorable. Supposedly fast, but he rarely stole even in college. If he didn't steal even against 1A pitchers/catcher in college, how likely that he's got the gift to steal in the majors? Supposedly fast, but Cubs played him mostly in left, and he scouted as having a left-fielder's arm. It seemed that most of the scouting reports on him talked about being a blood donor and being a football player; I didn't see all that much really about his baseball potential. So at first I figured he was a 5th rounder mostly because he's a 5th round baseball prospect. But if BA is listing him 7th, somebody must think he's got some tools that are pretty special, and that he's not just a 5th-round talent with some interesting blood/football stories. For BA to be hyping him up that high, I suspect that means Fleita must have gushed him up pretty seriously. Which in turn might mean the Cubs really do like him, and might even pay more if they think they need to to keep him away from the NFL. (As was the case with Samardz.) BA listing him so high might also reflect that the Cubs gushed him up as if they think they've got a serious shot to keep him, too. Which would also be favorable news. Even if it's some Fleita-gush impacted, I think it's some good news. Callis must certainly know Fleita well enough to know that he gushes. BA must have some kind of a Fleita-gush filter just like we all do. So I think for Szczur to rank that high, they must believe he's got some serious baseball potential and aren't just getting snowed by Fleita-gush. 1. Cal has suggested that Szczur played LF because Na was already locked in at Boise center. Hopefully the new spin will be that Szczur is a true CF prospect, speed-wise, instincts-wise, and arm-wise. Perhaps they're now thinking his arm isn't that bad and wouldn't preclude him from CF. 2. Perhaps they think that his speed might go towards SB in future? If he stole bases like young Lofton or like Pierre, versus like Felix Pie, that could make a difference. 3. Szczur hadn't hit for real power in college or Boise, and the reports usually talked about speed, football, and blood. So I had assumed Szczur projects little power. Maybe they think he has more potential to eventually drive the ball? A speedy contact-hitting CFer who hits 15 HR's is different from a LF who hits 3. We've already gotten a lot of enthusiasm about Golden and Wells from this draft. If Szczur is pretty talented, and merits being ranked up actually ahead of our 1st rounder, perhaps this was a more aggressive and high-ceiling draft that I'd thought.

My read is that Lake also definitely has a stronger arm. Whether it's as accurate, or whether he has the footwork and release time to make it as effective I don't know. But it's stronger. (Strength means a lot, but the stronger-armed SS isn't always the better-throwing SS. I am old enough to remember Shawon Dunston, who had a rocket, and Rey Sanchez. Dunston clearly threw harder, but Sanchez could play much deeper and was much better defensively because his release time was really quick, whereas Dunston had this massive windup that took forever. The time from the ball hitting the glove to actually getting to 1B was much longer with the Dunston-cannon than with Sanchez. IMO. I'm not at all suggesting that Lake has any such problem, just that a stronger-armed guy isn't automatically the preferable thrower.)

Lake was incredibly horrific for the first weeks or so. He was K'ing a ton, was hitting maybe .175 with no power and an OPS little better than .500. What he did after that offensively, to bring his season numbers back to where they ended up, was pretty surprising. I like Lee ahead of Lake, but I've never seen either and my thoughts are entirely derivative, based on what others have said or reported. Hard to know how much weight to give to different sources. Frankie P watches Lee for a week and writes his views, with background as a pro scout. Toonster, you give a very different spin. Unfortunately and with all respect, I don't even know how to contextualize your analysis. Do you watch these players yourself? Do you live in Peoria and see handfuls of games, or whatever? I don't know at all. Are you friends with Fleita or Wilken or one of the cross-checkers, so that even if you aren't watching them directly you're getting inside dope from people who are really watching them a lot? I have no idea. I'd love it if some of you most knowledgable posters shared that kind of perspective with us. And if you're like me, only a much more thorough reader of observations that have been posted on internet or in scouting books, that's fine too. For some years I think I captured and copied/saved pretty much every public comment or scouting evaluation about Cub prospects. So I had a much more thorough perspective on the range of scouting opinions about guys than I do now, when I know I miss quite a few. As for Lee, it's hard to know which opinion to give more weight. Seems to me there is the toonster version (pretty low and negative), the Frankie P perspective (way positive), and the BA assessment which is very favorable but is in between. To finish in the top 15 in the very deep Midwest League is pretty favorable. On any player different scouts have different opinions, so having a range of opinions is more the norm than the exception. But when there seems to be a lot of overlap from different sources, I generally give extra value there. There seems to be a lot of respect for Lee in general and for his defense in particular. I've seen more reports on Lee's defense than on Lake's, and the Lee reports have been consistently favorable. Report on Lee's physique also don't read as if he's likely to outgrow the position physically. So my impression is that he might become a premium defensive SS. I haven't read as much about Lake's defense, other than the obvious that he has a great arm and makes lots of errors. I'm surprised that this thread is suggesting that Lake's defense is almost as promising as Lee's. I'd just assumed that like most tall biggish teenagers with power potential who begin at SS, that he'd not end up there. If Lake actually projects as a high-quality plus-range plus-plus-plus-arm regular big-league SS, that's much more exciting than I've been expecting. I'm surprised, but I hope you guys are right. It's true that off of SS, Lee's offense would raise complaints. But high-level defensive SS's who have a chance to be high-OBP LH-hitting leadoff men don't grow on trees. I think Lee has a reasonable chance to be a .290BA-.350OBP leadoff guy. My understanding is that he can and does hit the ball hard sometimes, and will add some doubles strength. If he becomes a 5-10 HR guy with doubles power, I think that would be enough power to support a pretty good BA and OBP. It's hard to hit for real solid average if you're a 0-1 HR guy, but at the 5-10 level, I think that can be enough. SB's are unnecessary, but would be some nice frosting. Having a long-term fixture at leadoff would be pretty valuable. The Cubs haven't enjoyed good middle-infield defense or a quality leadoff guy very often. So I think Lee iis a high-value prospect, and I don't know enough to put Lake at that level. If Lee is that significant a prospect, and Lake is as good or better, and both kind of worked out, that would be just fabulous. I'm not quite sure, toonster, whether your take on Lee/Lake is a little different because you like Lee for some of the reasons I do, but also think Lake is terrific and have reason to value him perhaps more than I understood. Or if your relative valuation of the two is more a reflection of liking Lake, but not valuing Lee nearly as much as I or Frankie P or a lot of the guys who BA talks to. HOpefully the positive evaluations on both players end up being justified, and we have two long-term asset regulars on our hands. Seems to me that Lake's potential talent, to throw with a big arm and to hit with some power, that is much more position-switchable. A big arm is very desirable at 3B, and a big arm is very desirable at RF, and some athleticism helps at both places. If he had 20+ HR power and has a big arm, he could potentially fit in almost anywhere.

Guyer is a clear candidate for 5th outfielder as is. I doubt he'd get very much action, so short of an injury I'd prefer that he plan in Iowa than be 25th man in Wrigley April. Right now his pedigree is basically a great half season in AA. But none of us know if he can really sustain that. Big question mark. If he goes as 25th man and is hitting .245 in 65 AB by end of July, he won't have proven he's anything serious, he won't have any trade value, and he'll still be the big question mark that he is now. Nobody will trade anything serious for that, nor will we possibly entrust a starting job to him or anything like that. I'd prefer he was back at Iowa. If he hits .275 with modest OBP and few HR's, we'll know he's not qualified for any significant role. But if he bounces back from his big year last summer by hitting .320 with HR's and a .900+ OPS, that will reinforce that he's serious, that it wasn't a hot fluke, and that he could be considered for a serious 4th-OF role or starter; and that if somebody wanted him in trade they should offer something meaningful. But if one of our front four OFers is injured, then Guyer would be able to show whether he was or wasn't ready in the majors. I don't want any injuries, but they aren't uncommon so that might provide opening for him to get more meaningful AB and allow more meaningful evaluation. Maybe Hendry is set with roster, but it's still possible that he'll deal Fuku to clear moneys to pay somebody else. A fuku trade would obviously change the landscape for Guyer's chances.

But that doesn't really fit Wilken's style. Yeah, I know. I think Wilken is damn good at getting guys who can contribute too. Which is hells better than most scouting directors. I know he believes in taking "up the middle" types, which kind of takes the power quotient away right off the bat in most cases. And this upcoming draft appears(too early to tell probably) to be pitching heavy moreso than hitting. Which is fine with me too, if we get a guy who can profile as an ace. In the end, I guess I'm hoping that since we are very strong up the middle now, maybe he'll start swaying from that philosophy a tad anyway. 1. I wonder how many "boom or bust" guys actually ever boom? Maybe it's just my experience as a Cub fan, but it seems like anybody who's ever been tabbed as "boom or bust" busted. I suppose Archer might be the exception, as it stands now. There are guys who have high "boom" ceilings, and that's good. But it often seems that if they already have "bust" concerns from the beginning, it's almost a lock that the "bust" flaw will kill them. A couple of thoughts on Wilken and up-the-middle orientation. 1. A good team needs to get some quality, asset middle-of-the-order hitters. Doing nothing but going after #2 and #7 hitters, that doesn't make for a winner. I was trying to think about this in the context of Ron Santo's death. Since Santo was signed in 1959, what middle-of-the-order players have the Cubs ever signed as amateurs, who have contributed as middle-of-the-order guys for the Cubs? In draft, pre-draft, or internationally? I think in 50 years, Colvin might be the 2nd best one? Mark Grace (who really should have been batting 2nd on a good team) the best. Joe Carter and Rafael palmeiro, who got traded before they became asset middle hitters for the Cubs. After that, Colvin, a few weeks of Corey, Brooks Kieschnick? Maybe Rick Wilkins for a year and Soto, even though as pokey catchers neither batted in the middle often? 2. Given the cost of acquiring quality middle-of-the-order producers as free agent or in trade, it's really critical that we come up with some through the system. Hendry struck magic by acquiring Aram and Lee via trade, which resulted in the best stretch of Cub rosters in my lifetime. But it's hard to get them that way. Would be nice to produce some ourselves, and get some cheap years, and have them willing to resign at stay-at-home price instead of the Soriano/Werth need to drastically outbid anybody else in FA. 3. I don't think Wilken's "middle" stuff is too extreme. He's drafted plenty of guys who projected for power. Vitters was certainly no shortstop, he was drafted for his bat and power. Golden is no CF, he's drafted with a shot to be a middle hitter. Colvin wasn't viewed as a power guy, but Wilken correctly foresaw, and now we see that he's got plenty of power, it's just a question of whether he can hit enough. And Colvin was a 1B/corner type in college. Flaherty was a SS, but he's supposedly grown very big and is now perhaps sized more as a LF/1B than even a 3B or 2b. That catcher we traded for harden, he was a power-producing prospect. Guyer wasn't a SS/CF either, and was drafted with hopes he'd blossom into a middle-of-the-order bat. So I don't really think that Wilken's draft's have been too prioritized on skinny SS's who will remain skinny SS's. His position picks have usually seemed to have plenty of value for guys who might end up with HR power if they could just hit the ball. The catcher we traded, Flaherty, Colvin, Guyer, those all seem like picks who had pretty high-ceilings as HR hitters. I believe there was also a report that the Cubs called a HS bat in the 2009 draft and wanted to draft him in the 2nd round, but he said he wouldn't sign so they went to Lemahieu. One might argue that some of the pitcher moves have also been rather boom-or-bust hope-you-get-lucky. Chris Huseby for sure. samardzija, those were both shoot-for-the-stars picks, that of course haven't worked. I think Carpenter was, too; Cashner, as a reliever with limited inning but a big arm. Shafer is another shoot-for-the-stars pick in round 2; with his curve and finesse, imagine how starry he might look if he'd regained the 93-96 velocity that seemed well possible pre-surgery? Even Simpson, Wilken says he was throwing a lot of 96's, with a four pitch arsenal and promising command. If you get a four-pitch control pitcher with a good head and a 96-97 fastball, that seems pretty shoot-for-the-stars to me, too. But, shooting for the stars works only if you hit on some of those shots. We need to see some of these non-conservative gamble picks work out sooner or later.

Given the youth of the Cubs system, how does that impact how they rank against other organizations? .... I know that age is important in gauging an individual prospects value, but what about collectively? toonster, thanks for that tidbit, I hadn't expected that either. I think the age-factor matters at the organizational level, particularly because it includes a large volume of guys. We know that not all younger players improve very much (see Corey, Pie, Choi, Kelton....), but over a large sample some will, perhaps unexpectedly. With a large volume of younger prospects, it improves the chance to get some pleasant and unexpected developmental surprises. This is especially true for young pitchers. I don't expect the Cubs to rank very highly by BA types, probably around the middle, because I don't sense that their top-ten are considered to be that great. But I think our depth in the 10-40 range is quite strong. How many and how much those guys will improve is hard to anticipate. A flip note: I think sometimes organizations with more young guys get over-rated. Simply because younger guys can stay in the minors longer building up their rankings. Pie could be appearing in our top ten for years; Prior's only appearance was before he'd even pitched as a pro. Lee and Vitters, they could each have multiple appearances in our top-10 before they either make the majors to stay, or finally get dismissed as not being that promising after all.

Likewise rooting for him. The notion that he can throw 93-94 is faster than I've heard, I'd never gotten that impression that he had the potential to throw that fast.

Jackson's demotion followed an incident involving Lewallyn. That might not mean working under Lewallyn would be bad for him. If the guy has unprofessional habits, it may help him to work under a coach who won't let him get away with being a slacker and cutting corners.

Vitters peripherals in AFL look really good. He could use a little more HR power, and his BABIP stinks. But if a guy was able to full-season sustain his 6W/8K/59AB ratio, with over 40% of his hits for extra bases (and some of them HR's), you'd have a guy with VERY attractive numbers. If he had a normal BABIP this AFL instead of .237, he'd be hitting .330 and some of us would be more buzzed.

I'd think they could fit all of those guys. Chirinos, Archer, Guyer, Cabrera, Smith, and Smit. Six additions isn't that many, and obviously the first four are pretty much locks. (Well, Chirinos has already been rostered, so he doesn't really belong in the equation.) I don't even know who we've all still got on the 40, but last year it seemed we had a limitless supply of Berg/Stevens/Fuld/Mateo/Schlitter/Fuld/Hoffpauir/Snyder/Samardzija/Parker/Scales type fringers. If Smith and/or Smit are seen as comparably fringy, of course you can leave them off. But if management likes either one very much, bumping somebody off to make room shouldn't be too tough.

We'll see how Gonzalez does. If Gonzelez is both playing well and if the Cubs think he's got a chance to become good, then he'll get his opportunity to play. Not likely that they'll return him to Daytona after playing decently at Tennessee and then having a monter winter, but I wouldn't imagine Watkins is good enough to be blocking anybody. It could be tough to get a lot of action at Tennessee. Guys can share time, DH, play OF, and play 1B, so there are ways to get AB's even during a clutter. But if Vitters was to stay healthy enough to play most days, there could be a pinch on 2B/SS AB's. Nice to see Gonzalez having a big winter. I wouldn't be shocked to see him emerge as a meaningful utility prospect. He's shown a knack for contact, and he's young enough to imagine him growing into at least a little bit of power.

Interesting and fair points. I think I might see it a little differently. I think Lemahieu is a pure contact hitter. Yes, I assume that's partly a function of swinging aggressively and having a small and low-power stroke. So maybe if he takes some pitches, and swings for more power, he'll be K'ing like anybody else. Possible. But my feeling is that the "hit tool" is perhaps more intrinsic. It involves the ability to recognize ball movement and to respond. I think if you've got that, you can potentially adjust your stroke but still have the innate gift. Yes, obviously if you take a somewhat more power-oriented swing, you'll miss more often. But I don't think he'd necessarily lose much of the tool. (He might lose some average, though; I guess that's a finesse distinction.) 2nd, I think that HR's count as hits, too. If a player adds ten HR's, ten HR's are ten hits and for a 500-AB player, ten extra hits is 20 points of BA and OBP. Adding some HR's is not necessarily bad for batting average; it can help. 3rd, I think the two years of age difference is pretty significant. Being two years younger, Lem. has a chance to improve meaningfully. I don't have the two very different, so it's not like I'm arguing for Lem to be way ahead of Flaherty if at all. But Flaherty better get something going pretty soon. He's dropped quite a bit on my list from a year ago, because he hasn't improved with time as I'd hoped. The same may happen with Lem, who knows. But being a young man, there's at least the chance to hope. I guess I think guys who just have the gift of being good contact hitters, I think they can make adjustments for the better. Can choose to add more patience; can build themselves into more power. If Lemahieu has the gift, he may have the capacity to evolve offensively in a way that is less possible for guys who just have trouble putting the bat on the ball.

Nice list, Brian. And I enjoy the pictures. My list has extensive overlap with yours. Two guys I had in my top 25 that are not included on your list are Raley and Whitenack. What do you know stuff-wise scouting-wise about them? Any ideas what the Cubs think about them internally? Is it your view that they just need to sustain longer? Or that their stuff just is too mediocre to merit inclusion on a list like this? Or is it partly a case of guys who you just haven't seen much yourself, whose numbers weren't that eye-catching, and who you haven't really gotten strong reports on from trusted sources? Last, on Jay Jackson: I'm guessing your understanding is that the maturity issues go well beyond the 2009 incident? Tip of the iceberg, perhaps? My baseball concern with him is the volume of HR's allowed. Would I be wrong in guessing that much of your seen-them-yourself observation is for Peoria guys, and that guys like Rusin and Raley who bypassed Daytona, that you don't have as much feel for what they are like either as players or as personalities?

Nice. A day when he both walked and hit and hit with power all at once. That's the ticket. His AFL batting average (.255) is extremely low for a league where most guys hit .300+. But his splits look nice: 14H/6XBH (including 2 HR), .181 IsoP; 6K/55 AB is a very low K-rate. And 5BB/6K/55 AB is a fine BB/K rate. BABIP is only .255, that's pretty low, especially on the hard Arizona fields. Might be bad luck. Although hasn't he tended toward rather low BABIP over his career? His minor-league career BABIP is only .282, which I think is pretty low by minor league standards. I believe minor league BABIP tends to be considerably higher than major league BABIP? Perhaps given his slowness and his reputation for outing himself on pitchers pitches, both might be conducive to below-average BABIP.

ESPN insider stated that he hit 100 in the AFL. Nice to see the extra velocity. Well, that would be two. Law had him at either 97 or 98, as I recall, although I recall that being on a single pitch that went to the backstop rather than being near the plate. Grey's was more vague. Carpenter is at 5.79 in AFL, with 17 baserunners in 9.1 innings.

The concept isn't hard to understand, but the execution doesn't seem that easy. Corey tried it repeatedly but could never make it work. Colvin tried going really patient (for him) for a while, and wasn't driving anything, he couldn't hit at all. As bad as Colvins K/BB ended up this year, I still think that his efforts to be more selective did end up paying off for him in the end. Hopefully Vitters it will also. As great as the theory may be, that doesn't mean a hacker extreme like Vitters can just flip a switch and apply it effectively right away; there may be an extended struggle period before he can both walk and hit at the same time. One reason why I think the theory is great but the execution is often so difficult is that some guys just can't read the pitch very well. Yes, their pitch recognition can perhaps improve somewhat with time, but if the eyes and the brain just can't process fast-moving pitches quickly enough, and the body can't respond, it's just not going to work that well. Vitters like Corey has a short swing; that's supposed to help in that you don't need to commit as early and have more time to see the pitch and figure out whether to swing and where to put the bat. But it doesn't always work. I'm encouraged on Vitters because scouts say they like his swing. But I admit I'm worried that he just doesn't have the tools to be a good hitter. A pretty swing, a short swing, a sometimes powerful swing? Yes, and those are great tools. But he's hitting .222 in AFL where everybody hits .300; he hit .223 in AA; he hit .238 in Daytona in 09. That's a lot of awful-average and awful-OBP stops. Hopefully it's just because he's young, and actually he's a greatly gifted hitter. But it could be a case where he's a bad hitter when he's young because he doesn't have the tools, and he'll be a bad hitter when he's 26 and 29 and 32 because he just doesn't have the stuff to hit well. Too soon to tell when a guy is only 21. But if you can't read the pitch and react accurately to what the pitch is doing, the theory doesn't work. Being patient and picking a pick you can drive assumes that you can both recognize them while in flight, and that you have the reactions to recognize them early enough and then apply a hard contact to where the ball actually is when it reaches the plate. But what if you can't tell fast enough? Corey had power and bat speed and short stroke; but he basically needed to be a guess hitter. When he tried to be patient, he basically would decide before the pitch was thrown that "I'm going to be patient now, I'm not going to swing at this one." Even if it was a fat fastball right in his power zone. Then he'd get behind and say "OK, I'm not going to be patient now, I better swing if it's close", and he'd swing at fastballs at his eyes or sliders in the dirt. The good "plate discipline" guys have the talent to be able to recognize whether it's worth swinging at and then to swing effectively when they do swing, but to do all of that computing and decision-making while a fast-spinning ball is in flight. Not at all easy. I've nervous for Vitters. The guy whiffed 20% of his AB this year. Was he swinging at some bad pitches? Almost certainly. But I'm guessing that it wasn't so often a conscious "I'm going to swing at this bouncing slider" choice; I suspect it was often "Looks like a fastball, I'll whack it" that ended up being the ugly slider. A 20% K-rate isn't inherently that bad. But it might almost be more worrisome for Vitters in that given what a hacker he is, he shouldn't really have the chance to whiff all that often. If you swing at all the first and second-pitch strikes, how often should you even get into a K-count? To have such a high K-rate despite his hacker approach, that may be a red flag. Or maybe not. Perhaps he's just got some growing up to do, get stronger so that he drive the ball without trying to overswing, make some mechanical correction, see more breaking balls, get a little luckier, and maybe he'll turn out the next Aram. I'm hoping.