Scotti

I wouldn't think Prior/his agent would lock him into a contract that stipulated he could *only* arb if he super two'd. I agree with the beat writers.

The Rule Cinco Draft is sure fun!

Grant Johnson WAS the Cub's first pick in the draft and he was expected (and did) skip to Peoria, Pawelek WAS the Cub's 1st round pick, Petrick didn't get love (#5) until after his first FULL season. Justin Jones got love (#2), not after his rookie ball season, but after his LANSING season. And all the Latino guys (Cruz, Zambrano, Guzman) didn't get the love until after their first full-seasons... When's the last time a Cub top pick didn't get top ten love? When has a Cub rookie ball pitcher gotten the love? Seems an exception was made for 6'9" Andy Sisco after his rookie (Boise) season. Still, he did mop up the competition (101 K's in 77 IP in his first peek at pro ball). I think BA is very unlikely to give a 2nd round pitcher top ten love regardless of how well he does in rookie ball or how giddy the Cubs are about a kid--unless he's the (publicized) top pick. One would have expected guys like Guzman, Jones and Petrick to start out lower in the top ten rankings and move up. Instead, after being in the system for some time BAM! 1st, 2nd, 5th. Like they were just discovered or something. I remember (back in the day) guys saying, “Guzman must be a soft-tosser because he has great #’s but no BA top ten love.” And, “Petrick isn’t really special or BA would have given him top ten love.” As soon as BA gave them love everyone always knew these were quality, quality guys. But BA is a magazine. Their base expects to see Team A’s top pick listed. Unless he Sox they’ll list him. There’s no pressure on BA to list the guys who don’t get the Tribune or SunTimes articles. If they’re still good next year you can list them then--if not, so what.

Craig, I don't think the issue is that they don't see him with a very high ceiling. I think the probabilities factor here. When he was being scouted he was all over the place and more of a project. Until he slams the door on the probabilities issue with a solid season on a full season team they are going to hold off. On a somewhat related note I think it takes BA a while to wake up to non-high draft pick pitchers. Guzman, Zambrano, Cruz (even after a heads up from the Cubs), Nolasco.

The Cubs have always be high on Sing--even before last year.

Harvey has been hot for the last month—this was expected by some. For me Dopirak was over-rated last year because his BA had a lot to do with his hitting streak. I didn't expect him to fall this far though. Still has a month to get hot. I don't really get bothered as much as some when a player comes back to a league as long as he's basically age appropriate. Dopirak will be (if he returns). Sing was. Nolasco is. My tentative top five list would be: Pie Harvey Sing Cedeno Dopirak With Murton a close 6th

MiLB has the P's age listed as 23. Sure but earlier in the year (and his career) he was listed as younger (21). He don't look as sexy as a 23 y/o pitcher starting out in Mesa.

I don't expect either to play in any Mesa games before going to Iowa. They're in Mesa for instruction and BP.

Anyone know his correct age?

I'm sure you're right but it just seems like there are better tartgets than someone who is as hot at Hollandsworth has been. I suspect they are unaware that he has been hot. Hot streaks don't matter in the big picture. Who cares if he's been hot for a couple weeks? Overall he's been awful. Throughout his career he's been awful. Short-term blips do not mean much when talking about player value. Five-week streaks are even more meaningful in fantasy (Roto's genre) then they are in real life. The entire fantasy industry is based on streaks such as the one Hollandsworth is in right now.

I'm sure you're right but it just seems like there are better tartgets than someone who is as hot at Hollandsworth has been. I suspect they are unaware that he has been hot.

It sure doesn't suck because of anything Hollandsworth has done in the last 40 days.

What do you mean? Do you think the Holly we saw in June is the real Todd Hollandsworth? His numbers this season are almost exactly what they have been over his career. Yes, Holly was very good in June - just good enough to offset his horrible, horrible May. Another example: Neifi Perez. In April, we might have been saying, "It's a good thing they play the game on the field...," but since April, Neifi has been horrible, and now his season numbers almost perfectly match his career numbers. Your comment would certainly apply to Derrek Lee, though. I don't think anyone predicted such numbers for DLee before the season. He probably won't duplicate those numbers over the next 81 games, so there will be some regression to the mean, but Lee on the field has been better than (pre-season) Lee on paper. What do I mean? I mean it's a good thing these games are played on the field and not on paper. Play them out on paper and very few guys get a chance to play (except for those who don’t have a mean to regress to). Why now? They weren't 30 days ago and they probably won't be 30 days from now. Neither were they last year. The "regression to the mean theories" don't play out on the field as well as they do on paper. On paper if they aren’t close then, well, we’ll see some regressing or progressing. On the filed we have to find out why they are doing what they are doing. Take Lee. People armed with pencil and paper have been telling us that he would regress to the mean for months now. Articles have been written about it. Yet he has stubbornly refused to regress. Further, when is this regression supposed to take place? Today? Tomorrow? Next month? We were told it would happen LAST month and the month before. Back to Hollandsworth. Some like to use “statistical mean” as a predictive measure and that is fine provided one realizes as a tool it has very, very severe limitations. Some believe that it goes beyond prediction and ventures into prophecy (.270 Billy Bob won’t hit .300—Thus sayeth the statistical mean). It just doesn’t work that way. All things being equal player X is likely to Y but, when a player is on a month (or two or three) long hot/cold streak, all things are not equal. Something is causing the streak (and it ain’t the Big Bad Statistical Meannie). That “thing” may be age. It may be experience. It may be altering something in a swing or a delivery. It may be confidence. It may be a new park. It may be a combination of many things but there is at least one “thing” that is causing it. It's a good thing these games are played on the field and not on paper—they are FAR more interesting this way!

Not sure why a stat outfit like Rotoworld would dig on anyone for starting Todd Hollandsworth when his OPS for June/July has been .918/1.204. They're probably a little more intersted in his full season (.278/.329/.428) and career (.279/.336/.446) numbers that indicate he's got no business starting as a corner OF on a big budget ballclub. Good thing they play the game on the field and not on paper!

Not sure why a stat outfit like Rotoworld would dig on anyone for starting Todd Hollandsworth when his OPS for June/July has been .918/1.204.

My guess is the two are the same.

Sisco has as much "upside" as any pitcher in the game. Nomar is hitting better on the road than he did at Fenway this year and his three year splits that you refer to were skewed by one season (2003). Nomar also has the 4th best OPS for regular SS in all of baseball. AGon is next to last.