Jason Ross

Image courtesy of © Matt Marton-Imagn Images Hitting a baseball is really hard. The amount of things that have to go correctly in the moment for you to not only make contact with a pitch, but make solid contact, is almost mind-boggling. You have just a split second to not only diagnose what pitch is being thrown (maybe you can read the seams of the ball, or you've got eagle-eyed vision like Tony Gwynn and can see the grip as the pitcher throws it), but also whether the pitch is going to be a strike or a ball. Even then, you need correct mechanics, swing, and timing, and then you have to hope that the Baseball Gods are smiling down on you and that the exact moment of contact results in a hit that lands where a fielder isn't (or that Pete Crow-Armstrong isn't in CF). Here's the thing; Hitting a baseball is really hard, but not impossible. There are little tricks that hitters can use to stack the deck in their favor. These tricks can be having great mechanics, pure luck, having a good read on a pitcher's scouting report; there are many ways hitters can find a way to get just the extra little leverage they need to turn an out into a hit. The Cubs have seen a few of their hitters this year look to increase their bat speed—Pete Crow-Armstrong has used this to increase his home run power. One of the best ways to tweak the odds in your favor is an old coach's adage: pull the ball more. By pulling the ball more (and meeting the ball out in front of the plate) good things happen. It's easier to hit the ball hard, and it shortens the distance between where you hit it and where the fence is. And pulling the ball is a great way to hide other things you may not possess, such as elite bat speed. Hitters like Isaac Parades, Cody Bellinger, and TJ Friedl use below-average bat speed and extreme pull tendencies to great effect, and Matt Shaw has changed himself to more closely resemble these hitters. To understand his progress, we first need to peer into the past. Shaw, prior to this year, was someone who wasn't very interested in pulling the ball. Part of this was due to his rather unique set-up—being closed and toe-in pre-swing made it hard for him to open up on pitches. This can be reflected both in his 14th-percentile pull-rate in Triple-A during his first look in Iowa, and as well in his early-season spray chart. Back then, Shaw was willing to go equally to all fields, with a 31.7% pull rate, a 37.2% center field rate, and a 31.1% opposite field rate. While many of us were taught to "go the other way" as a youngster, this is just a poor way to hit at the MLB level; opposite field hits are less effective at the highest levels. Let's watch Matt Shaw show a good example of this by peeking in a specific plate appearance of his on July 3 of this year. The game is currently tied, 0-0, in extra innings with the Cleveland Guardians. The struggling Cubs' rookie is at the plate facing fireballer Emanuel Clase with a runner on third base and less than two outs. The Guardians' closer hurls a 100mph heater on the inner-third of the plate. Shaw, to his credit, laces a barrel 377 feet to dead center 101.7mph off the bat. Shaw crushed this pitch for all it was worth and it ended up a fly-out. Using Statcast, we can see that this swing had an expected batting average of .540, but Statcast does not account for directional hitting on these pitches. What we can do is search for all swings to dead center, at 101mph (+/- 1 mph) off the bat, at 377 feet to compare what other hitters did on these swings and we can only find six instances of this ball landing for a single, double, or triple over the last three seasons, and no ballpark would have been small enough for that to have gotten out. Overall, hitters hit .098 on similar swings (48 in total) to center field. Now, due to the game circumstance, a sac-fly was enough to get the win, so he didn't need to pull it, but it's still not the ideal outcome on that pitch most of the time. We'll come back to examine this swing in a moment. One of the reasons that he wasn't able to pull the ball probably stems from his swing at the time. From March 18 (when the Cubs took the field against the Los Angeles Dodgers in the Tokyo Dome) to the All-Star Break, Matt Shaw made initial contact with the baseball -2.8 inches in front of the plate. Yes, that means he was making his contact behind the front of the plate. This was 15th-deepest in baseball at the time. While other pull-heavy players make contact deeper than others (the aforementioned Cody Bellinger is one of them), one of the easiest ways to improve pull-rate is to move the initial point of contact. Since the All-Star Break, two things to note about Shaw and his approach is that he has greatly improved his pull%. He now pulls the ball 53.8% of the time, which ranks eighth in baseball. Previously, his pull rate would have ranked hm 141st (out of 155 qualified). This is a massive shift in approach. He is also making contact in front of the plate, ranking 71st of 237th in this metric, moving his point of contact from around two inches behind the front of the plate to over five inches in front of it. It's pretty obvious that to help create pull opportunities for their third baseman, the Cubs helped to create contact out in front of the plate (likely through the mechanical changes I have outlined in past articles). And it's paying off in a big way, as Shaw has posted the highest wRC+ of any third baseman since the mid-season pause. To highlight the importance of pulling the baseball, let's go back and look at the sac-fly Shaw had against Clase from above. However, this time, we'll be shifting from looking at similar batted balls to center field (remember, in three years, only six of those landed safely for a hit, and none were home runs) to looking at similarly hit baseballs to left field that were pulled (this excludes left-handed hitters who go the other way). If we look at swings that landed in the field of play on similarly struck balls, we find that only five balls hit at or around his exit velocity (give or take one mph) which also traveled 377 feet were hit for a single, double or a triple over the same span. Your first reaction may be to point out that this is less than those hit to center field over the same span. But, because the left field wall is so much shorter than its center field counterpart, we see that the number of home runs hit jumps from zero to 16, a massive increase. A home run in this situation may not have changed the outcome, but a home run in most others very well could. Simply hitting the ball to left field in a similar fashion increased league batting average from .098 to .808 alone. This is why you want to pull the baseball—good things tend to happen. Pulling the baseball can also help to hide other aspects of a hitter's game; the Cubs' third baseman does not show elite, or even above-average, swing speed. Swing speed usually goes hand in hand with power, and while he has begun hitting home runs in droves, his bat speed remains under 70mph even in August. TJ Friedl, Isaac Parades and Cody Bellinger all have bat speeds within one mph of what Shaw does, and all three have hit very well this year, due in large part to their significant pull%. Shaw is using the same concept to hide mediocre exit velocities and swing speeds. Finally, we can see this reflect in swing-decisions made by Shaw on a daily basis. While it's true that he has always been more willing to swing at inside pitches, where he is swinging has shifted, from up-and-in to more middle-middle. Swinging at pitches over the heart of the plate is just a good strategy for anyone, and when you add in pulling the baseball to it, it becomes a lethal combination. Hitters who swing at pitches identified as "over the heart" have a .436 wOBA on the year (on balls in play), and pulling those pitches increases their wOBA to .562. Conversely, hitting pitches even in the best zones to center or opposite field drops their wOBA to .357. In other words, it's the difference from being Riley Greene (who has a .357 wOBA on the year) to being almost .100 points better than Aaron Judge. Riley Greene is a good hitter, but Aaron Judge is the baddest man on the planet, and hitters who pull pitchers over the heart outpace him by a massive amount. It's not surprising that all of these good things have helped Shaw find success hitting against major league pitching. The Cubs deserve a mountain of credit for how they have handled their young hitter this season, and Matt Shaw deserves a mountain of credit for being open to change when he was in the midst of being humbled by the best pitching the planet has to offer. Both parties were able to identify issues and incrementally work through them. He's made strides defensively, mechanically, and approach-wise. How good can he be? It's hard not to start thinking about the ceiling. Could he be a Gold-Glove-caliber third baseman who hits 20% better than league average? Is he their own version of Alex Bregman? I'm not going to claim to know just how good it can get. But the one thing I am confident in saying is that the Cubs have a cornerstone type of a player for their team because players who are willing to listen and have the drive to get better are the ones who are always one step ahead of their competition. They continue to stack the deck in their favor, and the Cubs' youngster has all the hallmarks of the type of grinder who will not accept defeat. Have you noticed the changes in Matt Shaw's approach? What kind of a ceiling do you think he has moving forward? Let us know in the comments below! View full article

That feels silly at this point. He's already been worth 12 wins over his first three seasons. Wins have been valued between $8m to $9m or so the last few years. At $8m a win he's already reached over 1/2 of his contract value, as $177m at $8m a win requires him to get to 22 wins to break even. Over his next four he simply needs to be better than 2 wins per season, something he's done, essentially, every season since 2018 (he has a 1.9 and a 1.7 in under 130 games twice, that's basically two at that point). If we bump it to $8.5m per win, that lowers the remaining wins needed to break even to 8 and at $9m drops it another win down to 7. He's going to be a perfectly fine contract unless he just entirely cliff dives, which we don't see anything in his game right now to suggest it. Even if he dumps the last couple of seasons, big market teams can afford to be a little market inefficient in the end of his contract. That's what being the Cubs entails. His contract is a non-issue. What you may have an issue with is the way the Cubs operate and how they spend, but neither of that is to do with the contract given to Swanson or Swanson himself. That's a Ricketts issue first and foremost.

Yep! 97 wRC+ isn't great but is enough (he was a 98 wRC+ last year) and he has 2.5 fWAR on the year. His batted ball data suggests he's been unlucky offensively (.305 wOBA vs .355 xwOBA). His defense is a little down and we'll have to see if this falls into post-30 defensive decline or "just unlucky data blip" next year, but even so, he's been worth 2.5 fWAR and will probably lock in another 3 win season this year (or so - probably fractionally off).

Ian Happ has had career norm batted ball data since June 1st and has a 110 wRC+ since the ASB. I won't engage in a lineup discussion, frankly, the order is my least favorite aspect to debate; plenty of data out there shows that your lineup construction matters almost none. But the consistent Ian Happ whinging gets old when we have plenty of data to suggest he isn't nearly as bad as people act. There is plenty to be frustrated with, yours probably isn't within the top-20 currently.

Ian Happ has a 110 wRC+ since the All-Star Break. He's been fine.

And just to be fair to Seiya a bit more here; hitting pitches on the shadows is not a recommended thing to do. League wide hitters are just putting up a .269 wOBA on pitches on the shadow with a barrel rate under 4%. This is compared to a .356 wOBA on pitches in the heart. On one hand you want him to maybe fight those pitches off a little more when he's down in the count. On the other, it's just bad business to swing at them often because you're just not getting much done with them.

They're down fractionally. Down? Yes. Down within normal variance? Also, yes. 1% barrel% is, for example, one swing in 100. It's a meaningless difference as is most of the stuff being down. It's also up in August. It's hard to say he's frustrated when he's in the midst of his best xData month of the season. A lot of people love being body language experts, but the data suggests he's just fine. So unless we're behavioralists, it's probably best to side with Craig Counsell's opinion on things and the data. What we *think* we see isn't being supported. A frustrated hitter incapable of helping out wouldn't be hitting the crap out of the baseball so much that his xData shot through the roof nor would he have been capable of getting on base twice last night.

Image courtesy of © Eric Hartline-Imagn Images Watching Matt Shaw grow up in front of our eyes this year has been a bit of a pleasure. I've dived headfirst multiple times this season to highlight all of the swing changes that he has undergone. Right now, it's pretty undeniable what the changes offensively have brought for the diminutive third baseman, as his 181 wRC+ since the All-Star Break leads all third basemen with at least 100 plate appearances. He probably isn't 81% better than average, but he probably is a pretty good hitter now. I plan on diving more into his approach changes later this week, but today, let's talk about another aspect of Shaw's game; his defense. Before we dive into the nitty-gritty details, it's probably fair to first talk eye test—and based on the eye test alone, he's been pretty excellent. Just this past Sunday, in an afternoon game in which the Cubs completed the sweep against the Los Angeles Angels, Shaw made another seemingly beautiful play, diving to the side and reaching up to snag a line drive ticketed for left field. Before we dive into much else, I think we should just revel in the beauty and enjoy some poetry in motion: As fun as that was, the eye test can only get us so far, and we should always double-check what we think we see with what advanced metrics see. For defense, we have two competing metrics, Defensive Runs Saved (DRS) and MLB/Statcast's Outs Above Average (OAA). Each evaluates defense a little differently, with DRS using video scouts and a zone-based range model to determine probability for how often a play should be made defensively, whereas OAA purely uses the Statcast system installed in all MLB stadiums. Many times DRS and OAA come to the same conclusion. Other times, they do not. For Shaw, it's the latter; DRS loves Matt Shaw. It rates him the third-best defensive player at his position and thinks he has saved the Cubs 8 runs, while OAA believes he has cost the Cubs 3 runs on the season. What gives? Let's go back to Shaw's play on Sunday, and compare this to some underlying information from Statcast. Below is a chart showing Shaw's starting positioning and what his OAA is at each place. Blue is bad, while red is good. Note that Shaw is much worse when he starts deeper on the infield than when he starts shallower. The play above was one of the shallower plays in which instinct really takes over, but he certainly seems to struggle when playing deeper. Getting to the bottom of why this is the case will help us grasp what's going on defensively with Cubs rookie. Your first inclination may be that his arm just isn't good enough from back there. If this was your stance, you'd likely point to his 31st-percentile arm strength and then suggest that his noodly arm just wasn't enough to whip it across the field. Here's the issue: you'd probably be wrong. Caleb Durbin of the Milwaukee Brewers has one of the deepest starting positions in baseball at third, has an arm in the same percentile ranking as Shaw and is a +2 OAA fielder at third—and his best work is done deep at the position. Ke'Bryan Hayes of the Cincinnati Reds is in the 99th percentile for fielding at third base, but his arm is even weaker than Shaw's. The Great Impossible Nick Madrigal Dominance at third was just two years ago. If others can throw just as hard as Matt and be successful, something else is afoot. So if it isn't the arm, then we have to figure out another reason. The chart helps us visualize what may be occurring on a two-dimensional plane, but our best bet is to go to the video to better see the minutiae. For our first look, we'll head way back to April 2, to highlight one of Shaw's missteps. The Cubs are playing Oakland Sacramento the Oakland Athletics in an early season tilt, somewhere in the west. In the second inning, Athletics catcher Shea Langoliers hits a hard ground ball to Shaw at third base. Shaw boots the ball; Langoliers reaches first on an error. Frankly, I'm a little less concerned by the error here (at least for our purposes), but I want to highlight his positioning and his comfort level. Shaw is playing well beyond third base (in that area of blue on the Statcast chart), and he simply misplays that hard-hit ball directly at him. He's almost caught between hops. He feels uneasy on it—uncomfortable, even. Sure, Langeliers hit the ball almost 98 mph, but it's a play we should expect a third baseman to make, and the scorers agreed, marking it an E-5 and his third error on the young season. Traveling even further back in time, we can see another one of Shaw's early errors. On the same road trip, the Cubs are in their house of horrors, The Snakepit in Arizona. Eugenio Suárez hits a similarly hard ground ball toward third (this time to the backhand side), and Shaw (again) boots it. Once again, I want to focus less on the error itself, but the positioning: he's very deep when he gets eaten up. This is right in that same area on the field, and Shaw just isn't comfortable enough to make a play he should make. Another E-5. On the season, Shaw's average positional depth is about average for the position; he's not someone who plays deeper than others at the position. So, then, what should we make of the OAA data and the errors highlighted? I think he was uncomfortable and new to the position. Neither of the two errors above should be "hard" plays to make at 3b; they were each hit roughly 98 mph off the bat, but neither was purely scorched or required much movement. However, these are plays you probably don't routinely see at second base or at shortstopL hard hit balls directly at you, which requires quick-twitch reaction. I also wonder if the throw is getting to Shaw. Especially on the play against Arizona, Shaw is going to have to glove and throw, and it isn't like he's a strong thrower for the position (as we have previously discussed). It shouldn't be surprising, then, to learn that the plays Shaw has been most competent on this season (according to Statcast) are plays that have required him to go toward the plate. If we are to think about batted ball types he was most likely to have seen over the course of his career, balls in which he charges in are some of the most common overlaps with shortstop and second base. It suggests that Shaw was never a bad defender on the whole, but that the plays he was likely less familiar with (hard-hit baseballs deep at the spot) were new, and thus, a learning experience for the youngster. Specifically, what you have to do on these two plays (and what Shaw failed to do, but has begun to do even on similar balls as the season has progressed) is gain ground. That sounds crazy, to anyone less than a big-league infielder. How do you even find time to come in, however little, on a ball hit right around 100 mph at you? This is similar to the way hitters who reach the majors face a tough learning curve. Even in the minors, you're going to see some guys with good velocity, but it's not everyone, and most of the guys at those levels who do have good velocity lack other good offerings. Your bat speed can cover their velocity, or you can just pick on the guys who don't have it. In the majors, you have to learn to trigger early, in order to get to most fastballs. That's true even if you have plus bat speed, because you can't just rush your barrel through the zone if you start late. Big-league pitchers have too many ways to manipulate your timing and move the ball around; you have to start early and find a way to keep the bat in the hitting zone in case you get fooled. It's a whole new level and layer of learning that can only be forced by the best competition in the world. That level and layer is a bit less daunting on the defensive side, because there are more guys in the minors who hit those hot shots down to third base and there are fewer ways that guys in the majors can make you cover more ground or speed things up even more than there are with pitchers facing you as a hitter. If you haven't spent a ton of time at third on the way up the chain, though, the shock to the system is still a bit more real. You have to learn a pre-pitch routine that gets you ready for an explosive movement toward the baseball, and you have to get comfortable making that burst forward even when the ball is hit hard. Sometimes, a fielder actually has to take a slight banana route to a ball a step or two to their side, starting in and then giving ground at the last moment. That's not how they teach you to do it in high school or college, but it has to be the approach for all but the most catlike and cannon-armed third basemen in MLB. Where Shaw is (deservedly) getting love are on the plays like we saw on his diving catch on Sunday, but I think the real progress has happened without us even noticing. We can see the progress in a game on August 14, in a 2-1 loss against the Toronto Blue Jays. The Cubs are losing by one in the seventh inning. While we're paying more attention to the score, or the offense's lack of punch, grumbling that the team is likely to never score more than a single run in a game ever again, Ty France hits a 97-mph ground ball to Shaw. Shaw, playing behind the bag, fields the ball cleanly, then fires to first base. It's a routine play, one that requires no reply by the broadcast team. Typical. Out. But that play had all of the same ingredients as that Langeliers ground ball on April 2, essentially the same exit velocity, the same ask of the Cubs' third baseman (which was very little), except the one difference we can't see; experience. Shaw just made the play this time. In this way, it's better to not stand out; neither of the errors highlighted here would be memorable if Shaw didn't mess them up, and making that play on France is exactly what that should look like. By August, third base was no longer a "new" position, it was one in which he had seen hundreds of innings against high-level hitters. Shaw has made just three errors since, none of which resemble those early miscues. There was a pop-up to shallow left on which Shaw was battling wind and sun and couldn't make the catch; a hard-hit ball against Cleveland he was unable to field cleanly, but which came when he was positioned on the grass; and a throwing error against the White Sox on which he just tried to do a little too much. These early struggles seemed to vanish with time; his mistakes lately have felt like a systematic deficiency and more like hiccups. Yet, they happened pretty frequently early in the season. He had three errors in just his first nine games, and has had three mishaps in his next 87. That further speaks to the issue at hand: inexperience. So what should we believe when we look at Shaw's defense? Is he great? Is he bad? I think it's a mix of both; I think Shaw is a good defender today, but we cannot just ignore what he did (or didn't do) early this year. In April, the Cubs had a third baseman who was a second baseman masquerading at the position, capable of making the plays he was used to while struggling with confidence and inexperience on newer types of balls hit his direction. Now, the Cubs have a more complete defender—someone who shows more confidence on the routine while flashing the twitch and instincts he always had. And while I know it's the glass-half-full perspective, as Shaw moves forward, I think he's a lot closer to the 8 runs saved that DRS has him at than the -3 runs saved that OAA currently lists him at. If his offensive changes are to be taken as a sign of change, then we should do the same defensively. The Shaw the Cubs trot out to third base and in the batter's box is a very different beast than he was in March. Have you noticed a change in Matt Shaw's defense? What kind of progress have you noticed? Let us know in the comment section below. View full article

I will be honest and say that if there is a data point on swinging strikeout% versus looking strikeout% than I am not sure where to find that. I've parsed FanGraphs, BRef and Statcast and while I can find data on how often he swings, how often he swings at strikes, how often he swings and misses at strikes, and how often he strikes out, there is not a data point that I can find that would specifically address looking at strike three versus swinging at strike three. So if there are folks out there who are better at table creation and manipulation please step in! What I can say is that looking at his swing choices, decisions and the like, there seems to be a small downtick in swing decisions. His swing% is down around 4% and his in-zone swing% is down 3%. He's also getting less strikes, around 3% less strikes in general and 3% first pitch strikes. His chase% is also down, accounting for some of the lowered swing% numbers. His swinging strike% is down around 2%. Overall, while there is a a few percentage points in one way or another, I don't see anything that suggests there is a massive shift in his approach. Now, like I said, there may be someone out there who is far better at these things than me (I know I am not a spreadsheet master so tables are things I can use but can struggle at times - not my strong suit) and can highlight a significant shift in specifically his 2 strike approach to becoming far more passive, but everything I can see suggests that I think we anecdotally remember him striking out that way because we've kind of ingrained the idea that he's super passive with two-strikes/gets more bad calls than others, but I cannot find anything statistically to support a major shift between his season data and his post ASB data in his overall swing patterns.

So then let's look at his batted ball data since the ASB, shall we? Let's see if he's hitting poorly himself or having a bit of bad luck. Season: 91.8mph EV, 18.3 LA, 18.1 barrel%, 49.3 hard hit% Since ASB: 89.8mph EV, 15 LA, 17 barrel%, 44.3 hardhit% If we look at his swing choices, he's swinging less at pitches out of the zone, he is making more contact, and he's walking more and striking out (significantly for both). Is he really hitting poorly? Most of his numbers are pretty darn close to his season numbers, except he now has a 74 wRC+ and a .233 BABIP. Hard hit is down a few percent and his EV is down a mph or so, but he hasn't nose dived. What does his xWOBA say? Per his xData he should be having his best month! Even his "bad month" had an xwOBA of around .340. This does not sound like a hitter the Cubs should be sitting. This is a hitter who is liable to break out of the bad luck literally any moment. I am aware that people would like change because change in the lineup is viewed as "taking action" but sometimes the best thing to do is stay the course, not change things for change-sake. Suzuki is not hitting nearly as badly as his numbers suggest and the Cubs are unlikely to become better simply by doing something to create "action".

First off, welcome to NSBB. Secondly, to explore Matthew Boyd, let's check out his last month: Season: 2.82 ERA, 3.96 xFIP, 22.6 K%, 5.9 BB%, 78.2 LOB%, .88 HR/9 Since July 22nd: 4.10 ERA, 4.06 xFIP, 21 K%, 7.8 BB%, 70.7 LOB, 1.08 HR/9 So, looking at that, the number that probably first jumps out at you is the ERA increase, but diagnosing that is important. xFIP is a number we can use to determine how lucky or unlucky a pitcher has been and his xFIP over those two spans are nearly identical, off just by a few hundredths. If we dive deeper, he's not egregiously different as hitters are chasing, making contact and hitting generally the same amount of pitches (give or take 2% here or there). His fastball velocity is not down. His barrel% against is down and his average exit velocity is the same. A lot of the reason his ERA has jumped is because his LOB% (left on base%) is low. This is generally due to poor variance. These things happen. There does not seem to be anything wrong with Boyd. He was probably a bit lucky earlier this season. He's probably a little unlucky now. If he was getting tired we'd see a drop in velocity, which we do not see. If he was missing the zone or pitching poorly or had a mechanical flaw, we'd see that reflected in K% and BB%. Instead, things are mostly in line with what they have been. This is normal stuff. Nothing is broken.

There is a reason that uniforms like the Cardinals, Cubs, and Yankees always look good; simplicity. The worst uniforms chase trends. Across all sports. If you're a movie person, it is why movies that rely heavily on topical and "in" jokes age poorly, but strong writing, physical comedy and pithy lines are classics.

Yeesh, Pete. No.

Carson Kelly is in the 91st percentile of chase% (meaning he rarely chases pitches out of the zone), has a 71st percentile K% (meaning he strikes out well below average), a 77% whiff rate (meaning he rarely swings and misses) and an 81st percentile walk rate (meaning he walks far more than the average hitter). To recap: he swings almost exclusely at strikes, and when he does makes contact with them. He also doesnt strike out and takes well more than his fair share of walks. That is exactly a hitter who understands how to work a count.

It's not just K-zone, that is MLB's official strike zone. The umpire missed it. The expectation should not be that the hitter correctly assesses the pitch while also correctly guessing whether or not the umpire makes the right call. He watched ball three. The error is squarely on the official. Being upset at Kelly for understanding the strike zone seems silly.

He watched ball-three and the umpire called it a strike anyways. That's not on Kelly, he correctly diagnosed the pitch. You don't have to "protect the plate" on a pitch outside of the zone, the expectation should be that the umpire makes the correct call.

Whoops. Suzuki got a hit.

Making every decision based on the last two weeks is what fickle fans do because fans think the last two weeks somehow override the long vision and history of a player. There is a reason MLB teams don't operate in two-week sample sizes. Why does sitting on Tuesday somehow make Seiya Suzuki more likely to get a hit Wednesday when he already had Monday off? Can you explain that? Instead of grasping at straws, just admit that you'd rather watch Owen Caissie right now because he's an unknown. These justifications are flimsy. I'd rather be honest than try to hide our biases.

The point is that the Cubs need to, on a nigutly basis determine who is likely to give them the best chance to win. I understand everyone loves the shiny new toy, but Owen Caissie is a rookie. Seiya Suzuki has been an excellent hitter for 3.5 years. Yes, he is in a bit of a slump. But who do we expect to be better on a nightly basis? The guy who has been 30% (roughly) better than league average for 3.5 years or the kid who has 20 appearances ever at the MLB level? A slump is just that; a temporary issue that is likely to end at any given moment. It is not a waste for Caissie to be up. He provides a LHH power swing off the bench. He has 1,000 appearances in Iowa, a few weeks more will provide little. But on a nightly basis, Suzuki, not Caissie, provides the best chance to hit currently. There is zero reason to believe he is broken. They had an off day yesterday as a team, he doesn't need a day off, he literally just had one. Owen Caissie is no different than the backup QB right now. He is exciting because he is an unknown. But that unknown is also why he is a worse bet. Craig Counsell's job is to make that determination. He is a good coach. He is also correct in his assumption that Suzuki is the correct choice.

Image courtesy of © Steven Worthy / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images The MLB draft, unlike any other draft in professional sports, gives a nearly limitless glimpse into the future. Where as NFL players who are drafted within the top four rounds may legitimately end up starting Week 1 in the next season, almost every prospect taken in the MLB draft is years out from contributing to the organization at the highest level (that is, unless you are drafted by the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, in which case, you may be starting against the Astros within a week). This allows us to dream any dream we want because these players are so far from realizing their potential. Now that we are a month beyond the draft, teams have signed their players and lots of them have gotten a taste of professional baseball. The curtains are slowly peeling back and we're getting more defined glimpses into the future. Not nearly enough to say anything definitive, but just enough to whet our whistle and begin to dream a little dream. So, which Cubs picks have begun to show out in their first action? Is there anyone who's struggling? Today, we'll check in on a few prospects. Fair warning: if you're looking for an update on the Cubs' first-round selection, outfielder Ethan Conrad out of Wake Forest, you will have to wait until the spring, as he is still rehabbing a shoulder injury. Many of the Cubs' other selections are pitchers, and will have limited exposure to minor league hitting as they rest their arms from a full prep or college season. However, there are a few hitters who have been able to jump into the minors and should be monitored going forward! Kane Kepley, CF - 2nd-round selection out of the University of North Carolina Myrtle Beach (Low-A) .387/.548/.532 223 wRC+, 19 BB%, 11.9 K% Kane Kepley has had an absolutely torrid start to his professional career, absolutely crushing Low-A to the tune of a wRC+ that's 123% better than league average. He's been a menace, getting on base over 53% of the time while stealing 11 bases in just 17 games. This isn't even to talk about his plus to potentially plus-plus defensive acumen as well. It's almost undebatable, but Kepley has likely gotten off to the best start of any of the Cubs draft picks. To compare Kepley, the Cubs have had a recent first-round selection who had also seen a cup of coffee in Myrtle Beach Cam Smith. Last season, in 15 games, Cam Smith had a 225 wRC+, which is almost identical to Kepley. He struck out as little more, but also hit five home runs compared to Kepley's one. Both Smith and Kepley played in the ACC as well. This is not to say that Kepley should be starting for an MLB team come April like Smith did, but it goes to show just how good of a start he is off to. I will add some caution, however; Kepley lighting up Myrtle Beach should be mostly expected. It's a league full of players who probably aren't as strong as the ACC is, so him hitting better than he did in college is a bit less exciting than if he were smoking Iowa. As well, single-skill players can find more success at lower levels as their other skills are less exploitable among younger, rawer pitchers. Kepley has a great approach and contact, but the power is likely to remain a bit of a question mark until he shows it at higher levels. I don't mean to be doom-and-gloom, but I am trying to be realistic that while this is as good of a start as we could hope for, he probably needs to show out at higher levels before we change our feeling on him too much. Still, awesome start for the former Tar Heel with the Cubs organization. Kade Snell, 1b/OF - 5th-round selection out of Alabama University .210/.319/.290 79 wRC+, 13.9 BB%, 16.7 K% The Cubs selected Kade Snell out of the SEC in the fifth round, signing the former Crimson Tide player to a slightly-under-slot contract. His power projection is less than idea, but his approach and contact ability had some strong reports coming out of college. His former college experience and advanced bat prompted the Cubs to send Snell directly to South Bend (unlike Kepley, who got sent to the lower-level Myrtle Beach) upon signing. Thus far, the aggressive promotion hasn't gone as well for Snell, but it's still quite early. While his wRC+ and the pure "results" have been underwhelming, the approach has shone through with above-average walk and strikeout rates. The initial struggle, as well, appears to be behind the hitter, as he had only two hits in his first 21 plate appearances. Since then, he's hit .267 and coupled with his excellent walk rate, has posted a much more encouraging 110 wRC+. Given his profile as a corner outfielder or first baseman, he'll need to hit for more power than he's shown, but his professional career is young; there could be an interesting platoon hitter down the road here. Josiah Hartshorn, OF, - 6th-round selection out of Lutheran High School No data yet Josiah Hartshorn has quickly become one of my favorites in the draft class. This isn't shocking, as he received the second-largest bonus (despite being the team's sixth-round pick) of any one the Cubs selected over the course of the multiple-day event, clearly showcasing how the Cubs feel about him. While we haven't had a chance to see Hartshorn play organized games, there are some really good reports coming out of the Arizona Complex from Arizona Phil. For the unacquainted, Arizona Phil (or AZ Phil for short) reports on back-field games, practices, and the like, as the Complex League is rarely broadcast and there are many moving parts. AZ Phil helps give insight on these comings-and-goings and has a lot of positives to say about Hartshorn. It sounds like the Cubs are willing to give him at look in center field, which is awesome. I don't think his size will necessarily allow him to stick there long term, but it helps to identify the type of athleticism we're seeing from him and that it doesn't sound like he's a first-base-only prospect. The reports on the contact ability are also excellent. While he'll be a different type of hitter, Owen Caissie got some early looks at times in center field (prior to coming to the Cubs). Both are bigger guys, so having that type of athleticism early in their career helps you believe they can maintain enough to play RF or LF for the foreseeable future. We probably won't get much data on Hartshorn in 2025, but he sounds like someone who could have a rocket ship attached to his back in 2026. What do think of these three players? Have any of them changed your opinions? Let us know in the comment section below! View full article

My favorite prospects almost all have a similar underlying current of either: I was super-super high on them on draft day or I super super undersold them. I know I thought the moment they drafted him "Who?' and then reading initial scouting wasn't sold. Being wrong is my favorite thing and he absolutely has been a joy to watch develop. I know had I been running an organization at the deadline he'd have been on the top of my "add this guy to sweeten the pot" list and I'd love to see him get a shot with the Cubs. Cool story and profile.

Martin remains one of my favorite recent stories. To go from "guy who signed for basically nothing" to "probably going to make an MLB appearance in his life" is super cool. I know I unfairly discounted him on draft day and I know I'm not alone. I love being wrong.