Hairyducked Idiot
-
Posts
39,504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by Hairyducked Idiot
-
My influence reverberates backwards through time.
-
actually, average cubs fans underrate all minor league talent. people like you just assume they're going to suck. then if/when they start out slow, you revel in the player's failures. I can't speak for C.C. I'm not reveling. I'm just taking solace that while it may suck, it's better to be right than self-delusional when facing uncomfortable truths. Brett Jackson struck out in his only appearance today as a PH. That is his 200th strikeout of the season, in 566 PA, a 35.3% rate with an 82/18 split between AAA in the majors. If all 200 had come in the majors, he would now have the 5th spot on the all-time list. He would have 28 games remaining to accumulate the 23 additional strikeouts needed to tie the all-time record. I can't find an all-time K% leaderboard, but 35.3% would be second among the top 10 total K seasons of all time, behind only Mark Reynolds' 35.4% on his way to 211 Ks in 2010. Out of the five different players who appear in the top 10, four have 30 HR seasons to their name (Jackson's career high is 20, though has is already at 19 this year). The remaining player is Drew Stubbs, who struck out 205 times in 681 PA (30.4%) in 2011.
-
Last 23 PAs (since his 1/3, HR, 2 BB game, after which the theory that he's made an adjustment was put forth by multiple posters, based on splitting up his sample): 105/261/105, 4 BB, 11 K The sample is the sample. Chopping it up arbitrarily to try to make points just introduces bias.
-
Getting away from the circular Ian Stewart arguments we've had a hundred times (I'm still right), Josh Vitters' BABIP dropped down to .098 just now. His batting line is 082/123/164 He has 4 hits on 41 balls in play, two of them doubles. If his BABIP were something even vaguely reasonable, like .280, he'd have seven additional hits. Let's just say one of those would be a double. That'd make his line 197/231/279. Okay, so I guess that's still horrible.
-
28% is still making him look pretty silly. And it's possible that since advanced scouting is not a major priority in AAA, it did take awhile.
-
About as exciting as kevin Orie. Who also got BABIP-screwed quite a bit, imo.
-
Are Vitters BBs still exciting? Somehow doesn't feel like it.
-
"We'll never know if it matters, but it totally qualifies as part of my MASSIVE TON OF REASONS he wouldn't produce" is logical to you? Explain why you think that having a better road OPS proves that hitting in Coors didn't help his performance in home games.
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes 9-2-12
Hairyducked Idiot replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
http://yfrog.com/ndpdhretqoatlwbafilvnbirz yesyesyesyesyesyesyes -
Dear diary, Brett struck out 3 times in 4 PAs today. No one will probably want to talk to me now. At least when he hits, they taunt. The pain is the only thing that's real.
-
No, dismissing the park factor because he had poor home stats is a bad argument. Without the hitter-friendly home park, he could have easily had even worse home stats. We'll never know, of course, but there's no reason to just dismiss park factors because a single player has an odd split.
-
If we're just looking for potential long-term assets and don't give any care about their likelihood of performing in 2013, just give it to Vitters or Valbuena. At least if one of them hits, you have some real cost-controlled years to work with.
-
Minor League Discussion & Boxes 9-2-12
Hairyducked Idiot replied to CaliforniaRaisin's topic in Cubs Minor League Talk
Quick calculation: His Daytona slugging just went from .312 to .400 -
I'm just completely missing something here. Isn't pretty much every player on that list better, both recently and historically, than Ian Stewart? Why would you want Stewart over any of them, let alone all of them? Well right off the bat, Rolen and Polanco are way too old to even consider. Which is silly. If it's a choice between an old, useful player and a young, horrible player, you might as well take the old one and try to Maholm him. It's not as if we get tons of cost-controlled years out of Stewart if he suddenly becomes useful. Assuming he's not non-tendered, he'll have one more arb year after next.
-
I'm just completely missing something here. Isn't pretty much every player on that list better, both recently and historically, than Ian Stewart? Why would you want Stewart over any of them, let alone all of them?
-
Inb4 kjax walkoff
-
I don't know who that is. Can he play 3b or CF? We will likely have holes at both positions for 2013.
-
There was a massive ton of reasons to think that his 2012 wouldn't be much like his 2010. All of which we hashed out in the pre-season Stewart discussions. 1) Wrist injuries frequently linger for a lot longer than just a year, or even two. 2) High K players are prone to falling off a cliff. 3) His 2011 suckiness pre-dated the wrist injury. 4) He wouldn't be playing 2010 in Colorado. Michael Barrett is a nice pull, though.
-
He got there in five just to take the drama out. Back up to 43%. It sucks being right about this. A 230/330/450 hitting Jackson in CF would do wonders for the next few seasons. No one is right about anything, you goon. It's 100 PAs for a 24 year old making his ML debut. We throw out the 100 PAs. Then we throw out the last 250 PAs of AAA. Keep throwing stuff out and he'll be a fresh-faced first-round draft pick again.
-
He got there in five just to take the drama out. Back up to 42%. It sucks being right about this. A 230/330/450 hitting Jackson in CF would do wonders for the next few seasons.
-
Anger? David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were good at baseball even when they were at their low. Ian Stewart has only ever been good at baseball during his brief high. It's a pretty important distinction. "Using up your starting 3B slot?" So, this is fantasy baseball now? Yes, his "brief high" which was reached at 25 years old, as he was entering his prime, as compared to 30-year-old Maholm and 32-year-old Dejesus. I can't imagine why anyone would have thought he, if healthy, might contribute similar production, other than, you know, that sort of thing happening frequently throughout the history of baseball. Ok, I'm game. Give me some examples of what you consider to be comparable gambles that paid off.
-
You misunderstood. Maholm was worth the playing time. Ian Stewart wasn't. It doesn't matter that Ian Stewart cost us virtually nothing in trade chips and cash, because the opportunity cost of using up your starting 3b slot was worth more than he was.
-
The "nice abilities" consist of an incredible BB rate and some extreme success in areas that are known to be highly prone to variance. If this were a Cardinals prospect, and we were good enough to care what other teams did, the phrase "pixie dust" would be flying liberally.
-
Anger? David DeJesus and Paul Maholm were good at baseball even when they were at their low. Ian Stewart has only ever been good at baseball during his brief high. It's a pretty important distinction.
-
I didn't know we weren't letting him play. Sorry Brett, my bad. Didn't mean to ballblock you.