Jason Ross

Nothing yet. My hope is that he's been in the MiLB camp and the Cubs didn't invite him to MLB camp for (X reason). But it could be an injury that we haven't heard about too.

Awesome listen!

Kind of what I expected. Brown and Wicks in Iowa give the Cubs some protection from an early season injury. I think if Horton and Birdsell were ready and healthy, Brown could have pushed his way into the rotation or the BP. But keeping him in Iowa gives you a good fall back option if someone gets hurt early on.

Man, AZ Phil is so good for understanding option years, covering Complex League...and then he'll go and suggest the Cubs could move Swanson or Holiday and Competitive Balance B pick. I wonder if he's just been down at MiLB Camp and the team is working on something specific? He's been someone who's got a great approach but could stand to hit for more power. But this is my copium. And yeah, Shaw is another name I should have mentioned! It seems good news for both and always a positive to see how high the team is on these guys.

You know, I hadn't thought about that and you're right, we haven't seen anything on him. I broke my self-imposed Twitter ban (I've kept my account for a few things but really, really try not to use it) and a quick search of my following and everyone doesn't really seem to pull anything up. Something to file away - hopefully something benign and not something like an injury.

In 2024, MLB announced their "Spring Breakout" series—a chance to showcase some of the best minor-league talent in the game playing against one another in televised action. Who will represent the Cubs in 2025—and who missed the cut? Image courtesy of © Mark J. Rebilas-Imagn Images Spring Breakout was an initiative that started last year, as a chance for Major League Baseball to shine a spotlight on its best and brightest young players. Each team will face off in a single game against another, with a roster built entirely from minor-league players. The Cubs were supposed to play the White Sox last year, but the game was (sadly) canceled. This year, the Cubs' Spring Breakout roster will compete against the Dodgers'—mirroring their Opening Day Tokyo Series, in a way—and then take on the Angels' Breakout group a few days later. The Cubs will once again be putting together an impressive lineup of names. Last year's roster would have seen Owen Caissie, Matt Shaw, Kevin Alcántara and others take the field, and this year, many names will get a chance to make their impression. A full rundown of the Cubs Spring Breakout Roster can be found here, but here is a quick instant reaction to the entire team: Players to Watch First and foremost, Cade Horton is back in action... or at least on the roster. Horton is a name that you could likely put a bit on the "surprise addition" list, due to his return from an injury last year, but I think that makes him especially exciting to see. I want to see the velocity and the movement on the breaking balls. This is probably a good sign when it comes to his availability at the start of the year, and a sign that the Cubs don't plan on leaving him in Arizona for much extended work. He should, in fairly short order, be in Iowa, trying to force the issue at the highest level of the minors. This will be a fun first step. Horton will not be the only member of last year's I-Cubs (or this year's) who will be on the Breakout team, though, as James Triantos and Moises Ballesteros will also appear. While neither are universal top-50 prospects, both are guys who will likely see time in Chicago in 2025 (if they aren't traded, of course). Getting to see a few innings of Ballesteros catching is always a bit of a peek behind the curtain on his defense. Triantos is versatile, and his hit tool is very good. Hopefully, he gets a chance to cause a little chaos on the bases. Beyond some of the Iowa crew, many will get their first chance to see Jaxon Wiggins light up the gun. Capable of hitting the high 90s and scraping triple digits, the 2023 second-round selection out of Arkansas is easily described as a "live arm". Control issues may force the lanky righthander into a role in the bullpen down the road, but he has one of the highest ceilings of any arm in the system. I wrote about Wiggins earlier in the offseason, and I'll admit to being very excited for his 2025. Surprise Additions A few of the Cubs' most recent draft picks will get a chance to showcase their talent against the Dodgers, in third-round pick Ronny Cruz and fourth-round selection Ty Southisene. Both were selected out of high school, so both fit better into the "file them away for a later date and time" category than, say, Triantos and Ballesteros, but both have some fun upside. Cruz has big power potential, and Southisene packs a strong contact ability and a little more pop than expected in a small package. Riley Martin probably isn't a surprise in the traditional sense—he'll start the year in Iowa and has flashed a really nasty curveball for a few years—but his road is one that I've always found interesting. Martin was a sixth-round selection in the 2022 MLB Draft out of Quincy University. Signed for just a few thousand dollars, Martin was drafted in large part due to his ability to save slot allotments for other picks. He flashed a few interesting qualities, but it would have been hard to expect him to settle in as well as he has. There's a good chance Martin will get a chance to pitch in Chicago in 2025, and it's a great reminder that regardless of your signing bonus, these are all high-level athletes who can break out. Notable Omissions No Kevin Alcántara immediately stands out. It is true that he made his MLB debut last season, but that isn't an automatic disqualifier; players who still have their rookie status are all eligible to be part of the event. This, coupled with Craig Counsell's recent comments on the outfielder, make you wonder if this means that he's headed to Tokyo with those who are expected to play on Opening Day. That doesn't mean that we should expect him to be on the bench, though. He could simply be one of the handful of players on the taxi squad, there to replace someone in case of emergency and to play in the exhibition games with Japanese teams, rather than to face off with the Dodgers. If he does get a seat on that plane, though, it's a ringing endorsement. A few injured players will not make the roster either, in Brandon Birdsell and Owen Caissie. I didn't expect to see either name here as they work back from injuries, but it's still a bit of a letdown to be reminded that each is down for a while. The Cubs have no reason to rush them, and both still have a chance to debut in 2025. The Cubs Breakout Team will take on the Dodgers Breakout Team on Mar. 13, at 8:05 PM CST on the road, and then host the Angels Breakout Team on Mar. 15 at 8:05. The game against the Dodgers will be broadcast through MLB.com, while their home game against the Angels will be on Marquee and MLB.TV. Who are you excited to see play in the Breakout Game in 2025? Is there someone you wish made the roster? Let us know in the comments section below. View full article

Yes. I do think the velocity thing probably factors into here. I had another study I was about to post (sorry, got sidetracked with an Instant Analysis on the Breakout Roster being announced so I had to go write that up) from Rocky Mountain SABR which also explored that. It's probably nearly impossible to remove the two at this stage, but I also think that's not necessarily something that detracts from the overall argument, because I think as velocity increases, the need to hit home runs also increases. The idea of stringing three hits together against guys with the stuff they have today feels more daunting than ever. It likely means that with that stuff strikeouts are raising, but I think it also means the necessity to hit home runs is more important than ever. If you can't rely on getting four hits an inning, then getting a walk and a home run is probably worth the strikeouts you give up.

I think it's fair to point out those filters, discussing this at an MLB level does give us the best of the best. But I think that is countered by two things: 1. This trend isn't new. It's a trend we can trace back, using the chart and study, since 1950. It's a concept we have seen for a while. 2. We have seen a massive statistical and analytical revolution in baseball which dates back to Tom Tango and Bill James and has been implemented at MLB FO's over the course of 25 years - teams are finding every inch to improve run scoring. If teams didn't think, using their mountains of data and analysis that this wasn't a thing, we'd probably not see increased hitters striking out. I respect that part of this is an appeal to authority, but I also think in the case of the people who are running MLB teams, that they kind of demand that authority right now. In the nicest possible way, the nerds are running the MLB right now and the strikeouts aren't going down. You can think of it another way - in sports like basketball, we're seeing teams more and more shoot threes. That the risk of missing more shots is offset by the guarantee of more points. In the NFL, teams are more and more going for it on fourth down, as teams realize that the risk of not getting the fourth is being offset by scoring more and controlling the ball longer. Baseball is seeing a similar version of this - the risk of striking out (and not putting the ball in play and generating an error) is offset by the guaranteed runs scored.

I think it's a correlation. Using the top-5 is fine, but I think we also have to recognize that the top-5 guys who hit home runs last include Soto, Ohtani and Judge - these are freaks who will end up in a special place in baseball history. I think there's a bit of a "self fulfilling prophecy" there - they do special things and probably have a unique ability to hit a lot of home runs in ways others don't. It's why, again, I think we need to look macro. Here's a pretty insane study, and I'll admit, I don't think I'm smart enough to understand every piece of data in it - my true trade is a 7th and 8th grade history teacher and not a statistician. There's some crazy data charts that look like garble to me. But I do understand the words of it. The study finds that essentially, for every six strikeouts, home runs increase by 4.14. Below is a nice visualization. This is data from 1950+ on. So it's massively macro. Now, I would like to also suggest to your original point, the study does point to the idea that home runs and strikeout rates don't always go together - Soto and Ohtani clearly show that. But again, it's why I think a real macro look is important here. Because I think it really matters for the not-top players who are using that home run power to really be a useful player. Like Ezeqiel Tovar and his sub 4% walk rate is likely really being propped up by selling out for power. He was still 5% worse than MLB average, but I think a Tovar who decided to hit more baseballs probably is a worse hitter than Tovar who gives up some strikeouts for home runs.

While I agree, TT's is extreme (it was meant to be, that's not a knock on him), the example you have given is just as anecdotal. The reality is this: time and time again baseball analysis comes back to the concept that home run rate and strikeout rate are tied at the hip. A five PA outcome sample size tells us nothing. It's a game's worth of outcomes and it's what the issue with this discussion comes from. People who look at this as a "a strikeout is bad" are (generally - I don't want to pigeon hole anyone) looking from a micro level, PA to PA. "Well if Player X hits the ball in the field of play then maybe..." is usually the defense. Looking at how you have framed it, you're looking at it from a game's worth of PA's. It's at the micro level. For example, if in the sixth PA, Player 1 hits a HR and player 2 hits a single, Player 1 is now the far, far, far more successful player at run creation. We can also suggest that Player 2 may have hit into a double play within there, which also throws the data off. It's the issue with looking at it from such a small and narrow lens. The problem is that it is not a micro discussion, but a discussion at the macro level. When we zoom out further than a single PA, more than a curated five PA sample, the data says "strikeouts aren't a detractor in run scoring". We have to move past the micro here. It's easy to find examples of the micro - they're very anecdotal. But as we zoom out, we add more and more outcomes, the data stabilizes and doesn't allow a single PA to throw off the sample set. And because home runs are tied to strikeouts, we have to get to that big picture discussion so as not to grasp to this concept that "maybe the short stop will mess up" as a defense, but that hitters who strike out are attempting to trade that very small chance that an MLB defender will mess up, for a guaranteed run scoring play at a later time. There are 100% break points (it's why contact rate and strike out rate matter) to this data, but it doesn't mean that we should once again bore down to a micro discussion of strikeouts, either.

I have mostly written off Killian, but seeing that he's once again trying some new stuff gives you a little hope. There's some raw stuff there that you can always find, hopefully this iteration of Killian finds a home as something.

Right, but that article is suggesting that isn't true at the MLB level. If run scoring doesn't get impacted, than the style of out literally doesn't matter. Stylistically to you it might, but that's an anecdote, and nothing more. It's very different at lower levels. At the MLB level, outs are outs in the grand scheme of things. Hitting a ground ball to an MLB SS is the same as swinging and missing three times. You're going to get out. There's the rare situation where even the best player does make a mistake, but the amount of times that happens just isn't very significant. When teams identify pure butchers in the field, they become DH's (I.E. see Christopher Morel).

Honest question - did you read the totality of the article? Did you do so with an open mind, or with the mindset of "strikeouts are the worst"? I don't want to sound accusatory or attacking in tone there, I just wanted to double check. I think if you give the article posted an honest read, with an open mind, you'll understand the point it's making. It does so with honest data that shows in most scenarios, a strikeout (at the MLB level) does not meaningfully change run scoring. Yes, there are times (one out, runner on third) that hitting the ball in play does effect that, but the article accepts that. It's suggesting, using data and run expectancy, that strikeouts likely don't matter much. I have said that I think in a broad spectrum look that we can argue things that strikeout rate over the course of a season for an individual player and contact rates do matter, but each individual strikeout probably doesn't matter. Do you have data, not an anecdote, but data to support your side of the argument? I'd be glad to look at it! If not, there's probably a good reason why that is - most likely that reason is that there is not data to support that argument.

Now that is Corey Patterson.

So two things: I think things are a little different when we speak of the MLB. For example, I play in an adult men's wood bat league. Putting the ball in our league is key - it almost doesn't matter where you're hitting it, the guy you're hitting it at is paying to play in our league instead of being paid to play baseball - there's a high probability he's going to horsefeathers it up. At the MLB level, especially with the influx of defensive data, teams aren't running out DH level defenders any more, and while true that putting the ball in play gives you a slight hope, it's a really low chance now a days. The article's point is exactly what you're kind of arguing and that in most scenarios a strikeout, at the MLB level, effects your run probability almost the same as any other out. With runners on, it can result in you saving an out (as there's a very low chance of a double play on a strikeout). I do think strikeout rate and contact rates matter - they're real tools and there's break points on those things. But anecdotally, a strikeout in a given scenario probably isn't as dreadful as many fans make it out to be.

I've taught middle school of fourteen years. Baseball forum is the most even keeled place that I frequent daily. Not a single one of you attempted to use a four hour old hot dog you smuggled out of the lunch room as a tool in your Ted Talk.

It's pretty unlikely. There are only so many Miguel Cabrera's in the world. I'm glad for him, as Smith seems like a really decent dude. but the Cubs' Greg Allen (career 73 wRC+) and Vidal Brujan (career 50 wRC+) have both homered recently too. Spring training is practice. It can be fun, but rarely means anything when we're speaking of results (I do think mechanical fixes, new pitches, and process are worth keeping eyes on!).

This was a really fun thing to record! Highly recommend people checking it out.

I think you're missing the forrest through the trees, Tom. You'll notice I've never once said Brethowr is any of those players - only that long swings, don't necessarily eliminate a player. You're really misrepresenting my point here. The goal isn't to say "Ivan Brethowr is Paul Goldschmidt", it's to say "long swings aren't immediately disqualifying, so while his swing is long, we should be more holistic than to write him off for a single flaw". Why am I using these players? Because we have publicaly available statcast data for them - sadly this is the group of people I kind of have to use. I think we're on my third or fourth time in the article and the comments saying that the likely outcome here is something far short of those players. I think we're on the same page on the uphill battle Brethowr has. I just ask that you try to understand my point - I'm not saying, and I haven't said he's any of those players. I haven't connected him to them outside of the most tenuous connection - that tall players can succeed with long swings so there's more to the story than just "long swing = bad".

Yes! And a group of prospects who were all stat cast darlings. Cam Smtih, Cole Mathis, Ivan Brethowr, Edgar Alvarez, Cameron Sisneros all kind of fit this mold. Interestingly enough most of these players showed fairly good contact ability as well - you can find reasons why each may struggle with contact as they move up levels, so they're not perfect players but they definitely had a mold last year.

Yeah I wouldn't make any direct comparisons to the two (and I've done my best not to as it's unfair to both for a multitude of reasons) - they're both big guys and that's probably where it's going to end. Brethowr's a seventh round selection and comes with plenty of things to overcome. I do think it's important to point out that you can be successful with a long swing - Arrenado, Judge, Bell, Goldschmidt, Machado, Raliegh, Ohtani....are all far from short kings who have some of the longest swings in baseball and have had various degrees of MLB success. Having a long swing isn't immediately disqualifying and comes with the territory of being a big dude. Regardless, I do think the mechanical improvements are worth a longer look. I didn't realize how much I hated his swing in college and how much more I like it today. Will it result in a perfect storm? Almost assuredly not, but it gives it a platform. At least a better platform than the old mechanics gave him, IMO. I'm certainly far more excited about him today than I was previously, even if it's a "deep sleeper" type.

Swing does get a bit long. Hoping that with a reduction of movement pre-swing that it can shortened that a bit. Part of it, however, is just being 6"6. There's a lot of arm to move and you're just naturally going to have a longer swing. Not making a 1:1 comparison here, but Aaron Judge has a bottom 1% swing length. He's super long because he's huge, too. He's an elite talent and I dont want anyone to think I'm saying Brethowr is Judge, but that a long swing, on the surface, isn't an instant detractor.

I'm guessing he'll get the bump to South Bend. I hate reading too much into ST - there's many reasons why the Cubs might be getting a look at him currently - but he's not looked outmatched. And every time I rewatch his new mechanics...I realize how piss-ugly it used to be compared to how simple and easy it looks now. He'll be 22, and as a bat first prospect...I think the Cubs will put him up there. Owen Caissie really struggled at South Bend and they promoted him regardless so I assume the Cubs will promote him as well.

The Chicago Cubs' 2024 seventh-round pick has been making some noise (literally and figuratively) in the first week of spring training. What could we see from him in 2025? Image courtesy of © Kamil Krzaczynski-Imagn Images If you've been following the Cubs during their opening week of Cactus League games, it's pretty likely you got to see Ivan Brethowr absolutely clobber a baseball 450 feet to deep left field. While that kind of result is really fun, it's probably important to very quickly remind everyone that spring training is little more than a glorified string of practice games, and that these things shouldn't really change a lot of our perceptions. At the same time, it was a little preview of some of the tantalizing upside that Brethowr has, and it's worth diving a little deeper into the prospect who's making himself quite noticeable in Mesa. The first thing that immediately stands out with Brethowr is his size. He's listed at 6-foot-6 and 250 pounds, so he cuts an imposing figure for a pitcher to have to face. He's a massive human being to begin with, then you add in a baseball bat? Yeah, there's a bit of an intimidation factor. Many across social media platforms have been quick to compare him to Aaron Judge, though that's almost assuredly unfair. While there's a pretty massive frame on the seventh-round pick, he's shown enough athleticism in his college days to have swiped 14 bags, so while he's not going to threaten often, there's enough to make you believe he's capable of moving decently. As with anyone with this imposing stature, there are both positives and negatives. On one hand, Brethowr looks like he can murder baseballs, and he can—but 6-foot-6 bodies can be used against you, as there's just more human skeleton to control. What this means for prospects like Brethowr are that swings can get long and be less twitchy, and pitchers can use the inside part of the plate (where it's harder to clear your hands) against you. Already, Brethowr has (at times) struggled to make enough contact with the baseball to use his power and his frame; this will be something to monitor going forward. If there's good news in terms of his contact ability, it's that the slugger showed an ability to work on making more contact through his time in college. From his sophomore to junior year, he was able to lower his strikeout rate from 26.7% to 18.3%.. Even better, the reduction in strikeout rate did not come with a reduction of power, as his ISO and SLG went up, as well. He did struggle in his initial run with the Cubs' Low-A affiliate, the Myrtle Beach Pelicans, striking out 27% of the time and not really hitting much, but the hope is that it's a small sample in a very difficult-to-hit league, and that maybe these things iron themselves out through development. A reason to be optimistic; I'm pretty sure the Cubs have already tweaked Brethowr's swing since the end of the season. Looking back at his time in Santa Barbara, his back shoulder was kept in a more relaxed, less fixed position: you could call it "loose". As he swung, back then, his hands loaded backward and stayed low to create an angle of attack to send the ball into the air. You can see the hand placement, the elbow, and the hand load on this homerun he hit in May. Compare this to Brethowr this spring. It's a bit hard to see, as we're at the mercy of spring training's more austere selection of cameras, so we're looking straight on, but Brethowr's back shoulder is clearly in a more fixed and higher position. I would imagine, as well, that his hands may be pulled back a bit to help shorten his swing and/or make quicker decisions. There does not seem to be the same hand loading, and his hands seem to stay in place more. This is a good thing. It'll create a natural "rubber band" effect, and let him use his size and leverage to power the baseball—as opposed to forcing extra movement into the swing. With his size, he's got plenty of muscle already. One of the things that ESPN Pipeline brought up in his draft profile was that he had "a slow trigger," but he could be unlocked with "swing adjustments". I think we're seeing the Cubs attempt to make those. At least in this instance, it resulted in a 450-foot home run that had an exit velocity just shy of 109 mph. Compare his swing here to the previous video. What should we make of this? As fun as his home run was, it's an uphill battle for the outfielder. Brethowr struggled in Myrtle Beach, and he must show that he can handle A-ball pitching before we dream about him hitting windows across the street from Wrigley Field. Despite that, this is my favorite kind of seventh-round pick. There's at least one skill you can bank on being top-of-the-scale (in this case, the power), with enough other skills and potential tweaks that it could all come together in a beautiful storm. A realistic and successful 2025 season probably has the slugger ending in Tennessee, with strikeout rates in the low-20s, and flashing that 70-grade raw power plenty. An unsuccessful season probably sees him struggle to make enough contact in Myrtle Beach or South Bend for the entire season. Perhaps those subtle swing tweaks will be the difference needed in turning a mid-round pick into something very fun down the road, and unlocking that perfect storm outcome. What do you think of Ivan Brethowr? Do you think he can unlock his potential? Did you notice the subtle mechanical tweaks? Let us know in the comments below! View full article