Flashback: Brett Jackson vs. Tim Wheeler

A couple of years ago when the Cubs drafted Brett Jackson, I was pissed off because it looked like the wrong choice to make. The guy that got drafted right behind the Cubs, Tim Wheeler, looked like a waaaayyyy better prospect.

The scouting reports and the college stats said that, out of these two center fielders, Wheeler could actually wind up playing CF at the big-league level (Jackson was questionable) and had plus speed.

Jackson looked like he was just an OK player next to this guy.

Well, that was a couple of years ago. What have these two done in pro ball since then?

Brace Yourselves...It's not Good

Brett Jackson may be our best prospect, but his numbers pale in comparison to what Tim Wheeler has done.

Tim Wheeler

Brett Jackson

What do you see? I'll tell you what I see: one guy that does everything pretty well and another guy that does a couple of things really, really well.

Jackson looks like he can hit for average (this year not so much), but he has some speed, some power, and even though you can't see it here, he can play good defense.

Wheeler had a couple mediocre seasons in the minors but this year has blown up. At Double-A, he's shattered this image of a speed guy with no pop. He has 26 HRs in 90 games for a ridiculous .611 slugging percentage. He's hitting .300 for the first time as a pro, is getting on base at a healthy .382 clip, and even has 15 steals to boot (though he's been caught 9 times).

Was I right about Jackson? Should the Cubs have drafted Wheeler?

On the first question, no. I was wrong about both of these guys. Jackson is better than I thought and Wheeler is an enigma. I thought he was going to be a speed guy playing a good CF, and that is being put to the test this season. If he keeps hitting home runs at even a reduced rate than he is now, then the Cubs are going to regret this pick.

Jackson looks like he'll be a good ball player, but so far he hasn't shown that he can come up and be a star. Wheeler is on the same patch, but this season is pretty hard to ignore...it's pretty sick.

This is why I try to be as gently as I can when I rip the Cubs (or any other organization) for making horrible decisions picking players. It's a crap shoot. Unless you're talking about once-in-a-lifetime talent then there's no telling what might happen as players climb through the minors.

It's one of the things that makes baseball so different than any other sport: the difference between the college ranks and the pros is so wide that it's impossible to tell how a player from one level will do at the next.

Castro and Barney: Are They Really That Good?

The Cubs’ season has sucked so far in 2011, and after last night it doesn’t look like things are getting any better.

But all the analysts have all agreed on the few bright spots: Starlin Castro, Darwin Barney, and Alfonso Soriano.

OK I’m kidding about Soriano. But the Tribune called Starlin Castro the MVP of the first half and Barney was designated the Rookie of the Year so far. Considering most of the other rookies on the team have been awful, Barney’s “award” is one of those de facto deals.

But I think we need to take a closer look at all the accolades these two are accumulating. But how good are they, really?

Starlin Castro

Castro managed to hit .300 last year as a 20-year old, which is pretty unbelievable. Granted, he only had 463 at bats, but that’s still very impressive. And so far this season, he’s hitting .304.

Other than his average, how productive has Castro been? His slugging percentage last year was a dismal .408 since he hit just three homeruns. He did crank out 31 doubles, so the power could be dormant and may develop as he gets older and starts to get some facial hair.

Another positive: he’s slugging way better this season (.423) and already has 24 doubles, 8 triples (tied for 2nd in the NL), and two homeruns. So he’s getting better.

But still...what we’re looking at is a young guy who is developing. If he continues to hit .300 and develop his power, we’re looking at a guy that could put up some 15-20 homeruns while playing an also developing shorstop.

This is a good thing, but it’s not like we can just slot him into the 3 hole and wave goodbye to Aramis and Soriano. Starlin is not going to be the cleanup hitter on this team, and that’s something to think about as the veterans get older and we realize we have no replacement.

One thing that worries me about Castro is his on-base percentage. It looks mediocre at .332, but that’s because his average is so high. Castro has just 16 walks to his 48 strikeouts, which pans out to a 32/96 BB/K ratio. If he can hit .300 and keep that ratio that would be pretty impressive, but I’d like to see him control the zone a little better.

All in all, we have a very good young player whose ceiling is very high. But he doesn’t seem to bring any one talent that is considered an 80 on the 20-80 scouting scales. Not a bad thing, just something a lot of people have ignored because they see him as the best player on the team. I just want to remind people that, if he’s the best player on the team, then we need to acquire some other players ASAP.

Darwin Barney

Here’s the thing about Barney: the reason why so many people think he’s so god and they like him so much is because nobody expected anything from him.

He was branded as a defensive/bench player long ago and the fact that stole the job in spring training means he stole his way into all our underdog rooting, masochistic Cub-fan hearts.

But what has he done this year?

.303 AVG, .333 OBP, .370 SLG

He’s played some very good defense at 2B and that’s the main reason he’s kept the job over Blake DeWitt, who has some pop in the bat.

Pop is not something you’d find in Barney’s bat, as evidenced by that .370 slugging percentage. He has 1 homer and 11 doubles in what’s essentially been half a season.

And yes, I’m harping on OBP again: Barney’s is OK because his average has been good, but his BB/K ratio is pretty bad. It’s not Corey Patterson territory but it’s close:

10 BB and 33 Ks.

I like his inside-out swing and the way he makes contact with the ball, but unless he progresses a ton and somehow shows he can do more that what he’s done, what we’re looking at here is the second coming of Ryan Theriot with less speed and a worse OBP.

Harsh for a rookie, I know, but there’s a reason why no one ever saw him as a regular.

The Other Young Guys

I know some people out there want to see what the young guys can do and blow this season up. Bring up Brett Jackson, put Colvin in left every day, and get rid of all the aging veterans.

I like the plan.

But how will you replace the power Aramis and Peña bring? And yes, even Soriano? Colvin might hit 30 in the bigs, but his strike-zone discipline is horrible. He’s in Soriano territory.

The Gist

We have some nice, young players on the team. Starlin Castro is our best player. But we’re sorely lacking in young, premium power and in strike-zone discipline.

Without that, we’ll always have to rely on the free-agent market for help. In this league, in this day in age, you can’t win without power, and Starlin Castro and Darwin Barney will not provide that.

Can Ichiro Really Hit 40 Homeruns? Should He?

A very provocative story on Yahoo Sports yesterday about how Ichiro is so "set in his ways" that he won't change his hitting style even though his hitting style has him hitting a paltry (for Ichiro, anyway) .279.

The author's argument is built around Ichiro's legendary but hidden power. Many a fan has enjoyed Ichiro's batting practice displays of power, where he supposedly hits ball after ball deep into the stands.

It's the reason why so many have implored the 5'11, 172-pound Ichiro to enter the home run derby.

Alas, it hasn't happened, and that's because Ichiro doesn't believe that's the player he is. He was taught the fundamentals of hitting and he believes he should be a player with 200 hits that hits the ball where it's hit.

Batting average is his ultimate judge, and right now that judge things he sucks (he's a career .329 hitter).

But the article makes a few assumptions that are just plain wrong:

• Ichiro can hit home runs at will
• Ichiro can sacrifice some batting average in exchange for "trying" to hit home runs and succeed
• Hitting home runs in BP says something about your ability to hit home runs against MLB pitching
• Ichiro's speed is declining and that's why he isn't hitting .300

Could Ichiro hit "more" home runs that he typically does? Sure, he only averages about eight per season. But this idea that he can hit home runs at will because his BP sessions are so amazing is ridiculous.

Would I like to see him try? Would I be thrilled to see Ichiro torment pitchers and put up a .270, 30 HR, 100 RBI line?

You bet your ass I would...it would be the most awesome "flip" of a switch since Brady Anderson hit 50 in 1996 and Jose Bautista turned into Albert Pujols in 2010.

Will it happen?

Probably not.

If it were true, Ichiro wouldn't be hitting .279 right now.

For an even harsher look at the Yahoo Article, check out this guy's rant.

Why Zambrano's Move to the Pen Could be a Good Thing

Picture this scenario: it's the bottom of the 7th inning. The bases are loaded and the Cubs are tied with the Cardinals with just one out. Pujols is at the plate and Dempster, who has pitched masterfully (again) has already thrown 117 pitches.

He's gassed and this is the most crucial moment in the game. The Cubs are two games back of the Cardinals and they need to take this game.

Lou Piniella waddles out to the mound and touches his right arm: he wants the righty. And in from the bullpen area comes none other than Carlos Zambrano—the best pitcher in the pen whose name isn't Carlos Marmol.

If anything positive is going to come from moving Zambrano to the pen, this is it. The Cubs will be one of the very few teams who get to experiment with the theory of using your best reliever in the toughest spot—not just in the ninth inning to get the save. It's the reason why your best reliever shouldn't be your closer.

Teams have experimented with this in the past—the Red Sox a few years ago, the Twins were gonna try it until they decided on Rauch replacing Nathan rather than having a closer by committee. MLB teams just don't have the balls to try it.

The Cubs won't really be "trying it" but it's as close as we'll get. We'll see how long it takes before Z goes back into the rotation though...but I'd love to see him come out when the toughest situations come up before the ninth inning.

What Makes a Trade Good or Bad?

My friend Joel and I have been going back and forth a lot on whether or not the Silva for Bradley trade was any good. Basically, this is how the debate has gone down:

J: Bradley was a dick and he needed to get traded away.

SG: Yeah but the Cubs traded from a position of weakness because they HAD to trade him and everyone knew it, so all they could get in return was a chubby guy who can't break 90mph.

J: Easy there man, isn't it time you got back to managing jimhendryapologist.org?

SG: You're stupid.

You get the idea. But the more back and forth we had, the more I realized that I was indeed defending a lot of Jim Hendry's moves. Maybe it's because I followed the progress of the Cubs minor league system from when Hendry took over and slowly made the Cubs system the envy of baseball (this was a while ago).

So it's possible I have a soft spot in my heart for Jim Hendry.

But it's also possible I'm right. You see, if there's one thing I detest is Monday morning quarterbacking. Just because a trade doesn't work out after the fact, it doesn't mean it was a bad trade at the time. And the inverse also holds true.

Let's take the Silva trade because we can't really "look back" on it yet. It's too soon. But this is when Hendry had to make the trade—he can't look back to see if it's a good idea or not. And right now, this is a bad trade. Look at Silva's numbers and look at Bradley's numbers. Sure, Bradley is a jackass and Silva isn't, but Silva's career looks like it should never have gotten started and Bradley at least looks like he has some gas left in the tank. And then there's the whole thing about dealing from a position of weakness.

There is one phrase you'll hear over and over when it comes to trade talk:

You can't really judge this trade for a few years until all the parts of it can be evaluated

Bullshit. You can evaluate a trade right then and there but you have to stick your neck out and face the possibility that you are wrong. That's what Hendry and every other GM has to do, so why don't we hold ourselves to the same standard?

I know we don't have to, but we should.

Anyway, this was a bad trade. Silva's performance might make it a bad trade that turned out well for the Cubs, but right now I give this trade an F.

Zambrano to the Bullpen: 5 Reasons why it's a Sucky Move

So the Cubs have made their first desperation move of 2010 (I'm not counting the Milton Bradley trade since the season hadn't started yet). Carlos Zambrano was taken out of the starting rotation and sent to the pen.

Here are five reasons why this is a ridiculous move:

1. Zambrano is/was an Elite Starter

He's supposedly your #1 starter and now you're sending him to the pen? I know he hasn't been awesome lately (not many wins but his WHIP and OBA are top notch) but come on—since when do we judge a starter with his track record after four starts? He still has #1 stuff and now he's in the pen.

That sucks.

2. Are Gorzelany and Silva Better than Zambrano?

Nope. But essentially that's what just happened—they both bumped Big Z from the rotation. "But look at the numbers Senor, they have been awesome!" Sure they have, but like I said before, this is after only four starts. And yeah Silva looks like a new man, but these two guys will not pitch this well for the rest of the season. You can bank on that. So what happens when they come back down to earth? Pull Z back into the rotation?

Good luck with that.

3. $$$

Zambrano is now an $18 million setup man that will pitch three or four innings a week in a role he hasn't been in for a LONG time.

I can't wait to see the bloggers (not me) start to come up with the "Z makes $X million per win" stats that are so prevalent.

Sucky sucky.

4. What if if Works too Well?

This is where I hedge my bets. What if it goes according to plan? What if Z rocks it as a setup man, starts behaving himself, and donates half his salary back to the team so they can go sign Pedro Martinez? Then your hand is forced and he has to stay in the pen. And when Gorz/Silva start to suck or someone else gets hurt—then what do you do?

Nothing—you're screwed. Mucho sucko.

5. You're Taking Z's Bat out of the Lineup

The team still isn't hitting. It's sucking. So now Big Z will probably no longer hit. Which is too bad because he might put up a higher OPS than Theriot if he had a shot at it.

Tyler Colvin Mania Has Brainwashed the World

Who knew all you needed to become a big shot in the major leagues was to be young and have an awesome spring? Unless your name is Stephen Strasburg. Or Aroldis Chapman. Or Starlin Castro.

Somehow Tyler Colvin beat the odds and has won the hearts and minds of lazy analysts and over-eager fans by putting up really good numbers in Spring Training.

.468, 2HR, 18 RBIs

That's the line that created all the Tyler Colvin hype that's out there. That's a sample size of 77 ABs. That, along with Colvin gaining 20 pounds of muscle over the winter, has him in some conversations as a rookie to watch for in 2010.

Which is ridiculous.

I'm even hearing people talking about how he and Starlin Castro are proof that the Cubs have finally learned to produce position players.

That's preposterous—the Cubs have HUGE problems developing position players and one great Spring Training (it was great, you have to admit) by Tyler Colvin can't change that.

One good thing about all this undeserved hype is that Starlin Castro has the spotlight off of him for a little while. Jim Hendry made the right call by sending Castro to AAA instead of AA—at least we agree on that. Having fans drool over Colvin's spring-training stats is keeping the pressure off Castro.

Props to Tyler Colvin

First of all, my hat is off to the young man. He came into Spring Training without a chance in hell to make the roster and he somehow pulled it off. How Piniella will get him any decent amount of ABs with Byrd, Kosuke, and Soriano in the lineup is beyond me (oh and don't forget Xavier Nady, whom we're paying $3 million)—but that's a separate issue.

This post isn't about how Colvin is or isn't going to be a productive ML player. I personally don't think it's going to happen this year, but I could be wrong. I've stated my opinions on the Cubs picking Colvin before and I think it was a bad choice.

I'm sure he's excited about being in the Bigs but the Cubs aren't helping his development. He didn't draw a single walk (which isn't that big a deal—it's spring training), but in his career he hasn't learned to draw walks consistently. Which isn't a big deal, except he strikes out wayyy too much. He is NOT going to learn now that in the bigs—especially not with sporadic at bats. He is going to try to produce, which is what he should be doing.

The problem here isn't that Tyler Colvin isn't ready for the big leagues. The problem is that Hendry/Piniella decided to keep him on the roster despite knowing that it isn't good for his development. Just look at his stats—he needs at least a full season at AAA before he's ready.

The problem is also lazy analysts like Eduardo Perez. He was on ESPN and he picked Colvin as his "Rookie to Watch" for 2010. How ignorant is that? Here is what Perez did: he rummaged through the league's spring-training stats and found the best numbers available. He picked out the rookie with the best stats and that's how he made his decision. How else do you explain this terrible pick?

I should've been on ESPN explaining how crazy Perez is and how crazy it is to expect him to take over for Soriano after a slow start.

Wake up people!

Three Reasons Why Starlin Castro Should Start at Double-A

I called it! Starlin Castro started the season in AA Tennessee. Good job Jim Hendry!

Cub fans that have been waiting for the team to produce a legit position prospect that doesn't suck are now hanging their hopes on the man with funkiest name since Esmailin "Esmokin" Caridad: slick-fielding shortstop Starlin Castro.

He was invited to spring training this year and hit .423 with a homerun and two doubles.

There was even talk that he could stick with the big club as a backup infielder. Some gun-jumpers even thought he should be handed the starting SS position and move Theriot to 2B.

Nonsense.

The Cubs made the right move sending him down to minor league camp, but they're eventually sending him to the wrong place: Starling Castro needs to start at double-A Tennessee, not in AAA Iowa.

Reason #1: He's 19 Years Old

Sure, he'll be 20 on Wednesday, but he's still too young: he's never had more than 400 ABs at any level of pro ball.

He had 196 ABs at Rookie ball (hit .311), 358 ABs in high-A ball (hit .302), and only 111 ABs at double-A, where he hit .288.

Look at all his numbers all you'll see he's only had 665 ABs! That's not nearly enough to send him to AAA. He did get another 101 ABs in the fall league (hit .376) but it still feels like a very thin road to the big leagues. Paper thin, in fact.

I don't see why we need him at AAA in 2010 when he's had so little experience.

Reason #2: Felix Pie, Corey Patterson, and Ronny Cedeño

We've been here before, folks. The next hot-shot prospect that's going to blow us all away and give us our own Albert Pujols or Derek Jeter to hang all our hopes on. I could rattle names all day long: Hee-Seop Choi, David Kelton, Kevin Orie, Eric Patterson, Brooks Kieschnick, etc.

The latest flavors of the day were Felix Pie and Corey Patterson. Corey is trying to catch on with the defensively minded Mariners, while Felix Pie is trying to earn some ABs over in Baltimore. Both of these guys were rushed up to the major leagues before they were ready.

Felix Pie was 22 years old but at least he had over 700ABs in AAA alone. Corey came up at age 20 after 900+ ABs (but none in AAA) and he was a total bust after his good half season before getting hurt.

Fans might not want to hear this after not having a position prospect that's any good for so long since Ryan Sandberg, Mark Grace, and Shawon Dunston—but players are like steaks: they need to be seasoned properly. Otherwise they choke...or something. Sure, ARod didn't hit a thing the first few times he was in the major leagues. But that was ARod—a once-in-a-lifetime player—and that was a different time. Nowadays players have to produce right away or they are replaced.

Once upon a time, shortstop was a position you wanted great defensive leadership out of. These days you better hit better than .250 or you're getting replaced with someone else, someone younger, someone with more hype.

And then we have the most apt comparison to Mr. Castro: Ronny Cedeño. These guys are mirror images of each other: slick-fielding shortstops that came out of nowhere and in one year fooled people they were going to amazing everyday players.

Ronny was 20 years old, hadn't hit better than .218 in any stop in the minors, and was regarded as having a pretty good glove. Then in AA (at age 21) he shocked the world and hit .279. That got the buzz machine started. The writers were convinced he was a top prospect and the future SS for he Cubs.

Then he got sent up to AAA the next year and hit .355 in 255 ABs. The hype machine was in full swing: Ronny was the man that was going to end the drought. Just goes to show you how thirsty we are when a season and a half is all it takes to get us fans believing that we've found our savior.

The next year he was handed the keys to the starting shortstop position and hit .245 in over 500 ABs. He was 23 years old. And that was the only chance he would get: from that season on people pegged him as either a bad player or a part-time player. These days, you don't get a second chance. Lucky for him, the Pirates suck bad enough that they're willing to give him the keys again this year for another shot. I love Ronny and I think he could really be a good player.

Check out this great story on Ronny Cedeño chronicling his whole second chance with the Pirates. The cliff-notes version is that he's lucky a team gave him another shot after he didn't perform for a whole season.

He is now 27 years old.

Reason #3: You, The Fan

Time for you to take responsibility in this whole fiasco. The biggest reason why Castro needs to start at double-A is you. You've already heard about him in spring training and now you want him up on the team. It's time to make a move, as you so often say. It's time to "see what he's got."

No, no, no.

You have no idea what you're talking about. The kid is 19 years old. Don't ruin him. Leaving him at triple-A gives fans the impression that he's almost ready. That a twisted ankle or bad stretch of play from Theriot means he gets to come up and play every day.

This is not how we should be thinking about this. Theriot is the starting shortstop. He has the experience and the track record. He is ready.

Start Castro at double-A—let him focus on getting sharper, better, readier. Starting him at triple-A gives off all the wrong messages: that he's ready, that he is close, that he should be starting today if not for Theriot's contract.

So Jim Hendry, I'm pleading with you: don't let the fans pressure you into another move like they've done so often before. Keep him away from the fans, away from the hype, and give this kid a chance to be the best player he can be.

Keep him away from us.

Jose Iglesias to the Cubs: Thank You

OK, so this isn't breaking news, but the Red Sox are going to make an announcement real soon about signing Cuban shortstop Jose Iglesias for $8.2 million.

You could read about that anywhere, right?

True, but what I'm not seeing anywhere else is that their original offer was for $6.5 million. That was until the Cubs countered with an offer of their own and that led the Sox to jack it up to $8.2 million.

How do I know this? I know Spanish, that's how.

Do not underestimate what Señor Gammons can do.

Moneyball 2.0: Defense

Just finished reading this awesome piece in the New York Times about this new system of cameras that is being installed in ballparks across the country. They will be able to measure every batted ball, track the fielders chasing after it, and even see how efficiently baserunners are rounding the bases.

In other words...wow. Defense has long been the one unquantifiable part of the game, so I'm sure scouts around the country are like, "Crap."

Check out the video on the article to see how it works. Looks pretty spiffy to me.

What Does it Mean?

This should change the way players get paid, the way they're ranked, and the way the fans view them. Scratch that last one—fans will probably still just look at batting average and homeruns.

But for stat freaks like myself, having a system that quantifies defense by looking at range, speed to the ball, and all these other things this system brings to the table is going to be very interesting.

It will show which of the current defensive models are the most accurate and it should tell us more about who are the best defensive players in the league. You know agents around the league are going to start using this to get guys a fatter paycheck or a starting job if teams really buy into the stats this system produces.

It's all going to be very interesting.

Is Jim Hendry to Blame for the Cubs' Sucking?

Yesterday's article in the Tribune talks about Jim Hendry and how much blame can/should be put on him. It's an interesting idea because it applies to almost everything in life.

The basic question comes down to this: if someone makes a decision that, at the time, is the "right call," then is he/she responsible if that decision winds up not working out?

Case in point: Milton Bradley. He was third in OBP last year behind Chipper Jones and Albert Pujols. He's a switch hitter and hit 22 HRs.

When Hendry signed him, I thought it was a fantastic deal. Everyone can bitch and moan about how they should've signed Raul Ibañez instead because he's having a ridiculous season (.312 22HRs), but no one ever thought he would do what he's doing right now.

Bradley, on the other hand, was considered a good sign (by most people that know their stuff, including myself).

That has not been the case, however. He's hitting .239 with 5 HRs.

Is this Jim Hendry's fault? Should he be blamed/fired for moves like this?

According to Rick Morrissey of the Trib, he should:

You can say it's not his fault Bradley can't hit. You can say it's not his fault Soriano can't hit.

Ultimately, however, it is his fault.

Is it? Shouldn't the player ultimately feel the brunt of this? Isn't it Bradley and Soriano's fault that they haven't hit?

Sure, but you can't fire them without losing your investment, so that's why GMs and managers get fired instead.

The question is: does Jim Hendry deserve to get fired?

He's been at the helm for seven years and he's been with the team since 1995. Sure, they've become big spenders and got close to the World Series that one time, but the farm system sucks and all that money being spend on superstars doesn't seem to be invested very efficiently.

I do disagree with Morrissey in a couple of his lines:

It's a general manager's job to look into the future and see whether a player with a history of anger issues will be able to perform...

It's a general manager's job to predict whether a manager will be effective long term.

It is NOT a GMs job to predict the future. But he/she should be held responsible for a string of decisions that simply don't work out.

If you make a bunch of decisions at work that don't pan out, over and over again, wouldn't you be worried about getting fired?

Aroldis Chapman, Flamethrower, Defects from Cuban Team

One of the most promising baseball players on the Cuban National team, Aroldis Chapman, has reportedly defected from the Cuban National team during a tournament in Holland.

This according to a story on the Cuban site, Cubaencuentro.com.

The 21-year-old Chapman has reportedly hit 102 mph on the gun and pitched in the 2009 World Baseball Classic, where he struck out 8 in 6 1/3 innings but had a 5.68 ERA.

He was 11-4 with a 4.03 ERA last season, striking out 130 in 118 1/3 innings.

Looks like Cubaencuentro.com actually talked to the kid and here's what he had to say:

"I'm very happy. Until now everything has come out well. It was a plan I had, a decision I took. I wanted to test myself at this level."

He wouldn't say exactly what city he was in, for security reasons. How James Bond of him.

"I left normally, through the door of the hotel, and got in a car. It was easy." He now plans to "sign with a team and play in the Major Leagues."

Looks like Scott Boras has a busy night ahead of himself. And the Yankees. And the Red Sox. And maybe the White Sox too with Alexei and Contreras on the team...

Open letter to Lou Piniella and Jim Hendry

OK guys, things aren't going very well. I've been talking to some of my Cub-fan friends and they're seriously pissed. Like, totally upset.

Granted, most of them are your typical, reactionary Cub fans, but with the way this team is under performing, you have to sympathize at least a little bit with them. Is it your fault? Partly. It's mostly the players' fault for sucking so bad. No change of hitting coach or manager or third baseman is going to change that.

But here are some things you can do right now to relieve some of the pressure.

1. Take Soriano out of the leadoff spot: Let him get his head straight in the 6-7-8 hole. Anywhere but at the top of the order. People are really upset about him leading off so this will placate them quite a bit.
   
2. Sign Pedro Martinez: This will get people talking and distract everyone from how bad the offense is. Maybe he can come out of the bullpen and close some games out.
3. Put Soriano at 2B, Fontenot at 3B, and Hoffpauir/Fox in LF: Those last two guys are the only ones hitting lately, so why not get them in the lineup on a regular rotation? They can't be any worse than Soriano out in LF. This way you can stop playing Blanco at 2B when all he can be is a serviceable backup.
4. Keep Gregg as the closer: Marmol is your nastiest reliever, so keep him in a place where you can use him in the 7th and 8th innings. That's why your best reliever shouldn't be your closer.
5. Lou, you're gonna have to blow your top: He sounds like he's through with "making a fool of himself" on the field with his tirades. That he's matured beyond that part of his life. But seriously, this team needs some fire so it's time for Lou to crawl up to the mound and throw a rosin grenade at an umpire. Any umpire. You're gonna let this guy show you up Lou?

Esteban German: The Man Moneyball Forgot

One of the things I love to do on this site is single out players that haven't been given a full shot in the bigs even though I'm convinced they could succeed. That's why I had so much fun writing about the inimitable Roberto Petagine.

There's another player I feel just as strongly about but, unlike the 38-year-old Petagine, he's "only" 31 years old, which means he might still get his shot.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Esteban German:



For the people out there who read the Petagine piece, you must be thinking: "How could this be a guy that Moneyball forgot? He's wearing an Oakland A's uniform, for christ's sake!"

And that's part of the mystique behind this story: Esteban German was in full swing in the A's minor league system when Moneyball came out and when the Moneyball front office was operating the team.

They either a) thought he wasn't going to make it in the bigs or b) overlooked him.

Hard to believe that they overlooked him after you see his numbers, so we'll dig into the scouting reports afterward to see what's going on here.

Esteban Makes His Case

Let's dig right into the numbers to see what type of player "the Germ" was back in his minor-league days with the A's:



He's a burner and he gets on base—that much is clear. He managed to walk 102 times as a 20-year old in 1999, which is impressive. He adjusted to each new level and capped his five-year run to the majors with a pretty good year at AAA, where he walked more times than he struck out—something he hadn't done before.

That's pretty nice progress.

The Up and Down Era

Here's where you'll see a lot of prospects get "forgotten." They dominate at the AAA level, get called up for a few ABs, and after a few seasons people start to wonder "Wasn't this guy supposed to be good?" Well, German proved that AAA was no longer a challenge to him during these three years, especially with his 2005 season.

As you'll see, he's no longer with the A's at that point—he became a free agent and signed with Texas.

Take a minute and appreciate what Texas has in this guy right now: a 26-year-old 2B/3B that can steal a base at will and get on base at a very healthy clip. He can't hit homeruns, but that's OK. This guy could be your prototypical leadoff guy—all for around $300,000.

But take a look at who Texas has on the team in 2005: Hank Blalock at 3B and Alfonso Soriano at 2B. So Esteban German gets traded to the one place where you're pretty sure he'll get a chance to start: the Royals.

Esteban Makes his First Million

Finally, Esteban German gets his shot to stick with a big-league team—even if it is the Royals. Does he get a chance to start right away? Of course not, the Royals have Mark Grudzielanek at 2B and Mark Teahen at 3B.

Anyway, over the course of three seasons with the Royals, German became a pretty solid, reliable guy off the bench. He even started hitting with a little more pop. His steals are down and his walks aren't as impressive, but these are small samples.

In 2008, German made a salary of $1,000,000 for the first time. Go German!

Oh and by the way, this isn't a case where the numbers look great and the scouts think he sucks—the scouts liked what they saw.

Where is he Today?

Where else but in the minor leagues? At the start of the 2009 season, the Royals released him to make room for the Juan Cruz signing. And then the Cubs picked him up in spring training, which was pretty cool because I thought I'd get to see him play quite a bit. And you can always use a burner with plate patience on the bench.

But for naught—he was released and then signed by Texas. Here's what the 31-year-old German has been doing at AAA Oklahoma:



Esteban German may not be Otis Nixon out there, but he's definitely got the speed and ability to steal his fair share of bases—especially because he's so good at getting on base.

My verdict? This guy should get a chance to start somewhere. Maybe the Marlins should look into it, their 2B and 3B situations aren't looking so hot right now with Dan Uggla and Emilio Bonifacio struggling.

German could turn out to be a nifty little player somewhere close to what Chone Figgins does with the Angels.

I pull for these kinds of guys because their numbers show they can play at the big-league level. But with German it's different because he isn't a power hitter. He's a small ball kind of guy, which is kind of endearing. If you like to root for the underdog like I do, he's your guy.

And also, he comes off real genuine and humble—even in Spanish interviews. Which is more than we can say for Sammy "the Douche" Sosa.

Esteban, I salute you. Godspeed.

Why Homeruns are so Important

OBP is obviously one of my favorite statistics. I loved Moneyball and I still can't figure out why so many MLB managers refuse to admit how important it is in measuring how good a player is.

But is OBP the most important statistic out there?

It depends.

If you're talking about comparing one player to another, I'd probably say yes—OBP is the best way of comparing two players. But is it the end all be all of stats?

Nope. Homeruns are.

Before you get your panties all in a bunch over sounding like a steroid-munching, ignorant fan that digs the long ball, let me explain.

Baseball is about winning. You win by scoring more runs than the other team. Scoring more runs, therefore, is the most important part of the game. So if you can do something to create a run all by yourself—and do that a lot—then you're very valuable.

Enter the homerun. Hitting a homerun means you're creating a run and an RBI in one swing. Granted, getting on base is the first step in scoring a run, but getting a homerun is an even faster way of getting on and getting in.

Ideally, you have a guy like Albert Pujols that hits tons of homeruns (37 last year) and has a high OBP (.462 last year), but if you had to place value on a player, you have to give the homerun its due.

In terms of pure statistics relative to winning ballgames, there's nothing that can compare to it. Let's take a look at the top ten players for the two categories last year.



Ideally, you have a guy on both lists, which makes Manny and Albert the most valuable players. But take a good look, would you rather have Chipper Jones or Ryan Howard (age issues aside)? Who brings more value to your team, Joe Mauer or Ryan Braun?

These are the questions we are faced with, people. Go forth and answer them.

Why do the Cubs Suck at Developing Position Players?

The inimitable Tuffy Rhodes

Pop quiz, hot shot: name a position player that came up through the Cubs' minor league system and went on to become a superstar.

For the sake of this discussion, let's leave Geovany Soto out of it. He had a great rookie year, but it's too early to tell if we can really rank him up there in superstar land—especially with the numbers he's putting up right now.

With the draft going down this week, here's what the Tribune had to say about the Cubs' farms system's ability to produce good position players:

Geovany Soto had a breakthrough season last year, earning National League Rookie of the Year honors, but has regressed in '09. Micah Hoffpauir is contributing in a limited role, while Jake Fox, recently called up after tearing up the Pacific Coast League, can't find his way into the Cubs' lineup. Ryan Theriot has been consistent at short but lacks the dominant offensive numbers to make him an impact player. At this point, it appears that the top position player drafted by the Cubs in the last decade was an obscure catcher selected in the 38th round of the 2002 draft. That catcher turned out to be Randy Wells, now one of the most dominating rookie pitchers in the National League.Those names are kind of a stretch since Wells isn't "proven" by any means, and neither is Fox or Hoffpauir.

I'm looking for superstars, not just contributors or everyday players. So let's take a look at what the Cubs have done in the past and see how bad they've really been.

The Candidates
We can't go back more than 30 years because I wasn't alive and going that far back bores me. So we'll start off at an arbitrary point of my own choosing: the Shawon Dunston era. He'll be our Jesus and our discussion will be limited exclusively to AD (Año Domini or After Dunston).

Was Dunston a superstar? In Chicago he certainly was, but a career .269 hitter (.296 OBP) with two All-Star appearances and no gold gloves (blame the Wizard of Oz for that) does not a superstar make.

I started by listing some recognizable names that came up through the Cubs system like Dwight Smith (fail), Damon Berryhill, Rich Amaral, Dave Martinez, Doug Dascenzo, Mark Grace, Joe Girardi, Doug Glanville, Eric Hinske, and Brendan Harris.

The only guy out of that bunch that deserves to be highlighted is Mark Grace. Not only because I have a man crush on the dude's swing, but because his numbers warrant it:


Gracey also won four gold gloves and was an All Star three times.

But what about Joe Girardi and Ryne Sandberg? Well, Joe was all right and a great fixture in Chicago, but he wasn't a superstar. And as for Ryno, he was actually drafted by the Phillies and got traded to the Cubs with Larry Bowa for Ivan DeJesus. So that's a no go.

Mark Grace...that's it.

Well, maybe there are some guys in the minor leagues that might develop into superstars.

Potential Candidates

The first name you'll hear in this argument is Josh Vitters, as you can see from this Tribune article that calls him "the 3rd basemen of the future." He's also been ranked as the Cubs top prospect by Baseball America. How's the 19-year old doing?



He's absolutely killing the ball right now, the only thing that's worrisome is his BB/K ratio. That's not very many walks, although the scouts are saying that's because he's not missing any balls right now. If the pitchers throw a strike, he's nailing it. But what about all those strikeouts then?

Then we have OF Tyler Colvin, the top pick of the 2007 draft. I think I've said all I need to say about him. Suffice to say I don't think he'll amount to superstar material.

The only other guy I would mention is Tony Thomas, I guy I started following right after he was drafted in 2007. At the time I saw him as a #1 or #2 hitter: he could hit, draw a walk, and had some speed. Lately his power seems to be coming around and he isn't walking as much. Still, he's about the most exciting thing going in the system in terms of position players besides Vitters:


This is what passes for "exciting" these days

Why the Cubs Suck

A friend of mine keeps trying to lay the blame on "The Cubs" or "Cubs management." But personnel has changed over the years so you can't really blame a specific group of people.

Can you blame Jim Hendry? He's been with the cubs since 1995 and was in a real position of leadership since 2001. Is this just a case of bad luck or a bad philosophy of developing/drafting players?

I think it comes down to philosophy. What's the Cubs' philosophy when it comes to drafting and developing players? Is there one? The Rangers pitchers are all about eliminating pitch counts and getting them to throw more. The A's have always been about plate discipline. The Braves are about producing studs—plain and simple.

The Cubs don't really have a direction. They're slowly creeping into the realm of the Yankees and Red Sox—large-market teams with too much money for their own good. Not enough of attention is being paid to the farm system, which was once so highly touted until those prospects flamed out (Hee Seop Choi, Corey Patterson, Bobby Hill, etc.).

They need some soul. Some direction. Some unified idea of what they want to do with position players to help them get better and become productive in the big leagues. Once they lay down a sensible plan, then they'll be able to give this another shot.

Until then I'll keep waiting for Josh Vitters and Tony Thomas to bring a little respectability to the farm.

MLB Draft: Cubs Mess Up Again

So the first round of the draft was yesterday and the Cubs took college OF Brett Jackson, who looks like he might be a decent center fielder. But "might" and "decent" isn't very exciting way to describe your first pick in the draft. Here's what MLB's Draft Tracker has on him:

It's not a great Draft class for college bats, particularly in the outfield, so one with the athleticism Jackson has is bound to be noticed. He runs well on both sides of the ball, has a decent approach at the plate and plays a good center field right now. Some may see him as a tweener who isn't a leadoff hitter or a No. 3 type. If he gets bigger he will have to move to a corner, where how much power he actually has becomes a bigger question. He's got more value if he can stay in center, and the team that takes him may be hoping he can stay put. Click here for the video.

So he isn't a leadoff guy and he isn't a power guy, although he might get some power if he gets "bigger." But then he won't be a centerfielder anymore. So basically this guy is a blank slate with great athleticism. Hmmm, sounds awfully similar to another recent top pick: Tyler Colvin. Here's what MLB's Draft Tracker had on him back in 2006:

He has a good hitting approach, though sometimes he's too aggressive. He hasn't shown much power, but there's room for growth there. He has enough speed to possibly stay in center.

Colvin's big problem, as everyone already knew before he signed, was his approach at the plate. Too many Ks and too few walks. In his minor-league career so far he's got 91 BB to 289 Ks, which is terrible. He's floundering at AA right now, which with those numbers is no surprise.

Why am I going aggro about this year's pick? Well, because Brett Jackson looks like Tyler Colvin Redux, and Tyler Colvin hasn't done jack. And quite frankly, it doesn't look like he will unless he pulls a Samardzija and starts to get better every time he gets promoted.

Have we not learned anything? Or are the Cubs just doomed to never develop another position player again? It doesn't matter if you think you develop or draft studs, the Cubs aren't going to do either with this pick.

Let's check out the stats from their final season in college:



Project Mr. Brett Jackson to a full season and he'll strike out around 180 times. For a guy with power that "might" develop, that's not good. Unless you're Barry Bonds or Adam Dunn, you're not allowed to strike out this much.

But that's not the main reason why I'm so upset about this pick. Take a look at who got picked RIGHT AFTER BRETT JACKSON: a kid named Tim Wheeler. Let's see what the Draft Tracker has to say about him:

Wheeler is a pretty advanced college hitter whose best assets are his ability to make contact and his speed. He should be the type who can hit at or near the top of a lineup with the potential to be a plus base-stealer. He uses his speed well in center and has the skills to stay there. Without much power, he probably won't be off the charts, but could be a very solid college draftee in June. Click here for the video.

So he's fast and can play center. Oh and he can hit at the top of the order. That's good to know. Not that many "maybes" in this guy's game. Let's see how his numbers compare:



Dear god! Why did we not pick this guy instead? Because he doesn't project to hit a ton of homeruns? He hit 18 to Brett Jackson's 8! Look at the young man's walks! His steals! His fielding percentage! ARGHHH!!!

What the hell is going on here?

I've been working on a post on how the Cubs suck at drafting/developing position players is so bad. So far in this year's draft they don't appear to be reversing the trend...

Note: Make sure to check out Baseball America's scouting report on all the first rounders. Jackson and Wheeler are at the bottom of the page.

Your Best Reliever Shouldn't be the Closer

It's the bottom of the seventh inning and you're facing runners on second and third with nobody out. The score is 4–2 them and this game puts you one step closer to clinching your division. Your starter has run out of gas and, as the manager slowly walks towards the mound, you wonder who he's going to put in the ballgame.

Who do you want him to call down from the pen? Wouldn't you want the best reliever on the team to come in and try to snuff out this rally?

Of course you do, but most managers don't do that. They've fallen into the trap of designated their best reliever as "the closer," and that guy doesn't come into the game until at least the 8th inning.

Which means you're putting a guy into the most crucial part of the game that, while be may be very good, isn't the best. Which I think is dumb.

The Carlos Marmol Effect

At the start of the 2009 season, Cubs manager Lou Piniella decided that Kevin Gregg would be the closer over the young flamethrower Carlos Marmol. A lot of Cub fans were upset because they thought (correctly, in my opinion) that Marmol was the better reliever. Therefore, he should be the closer.

Whatever Lou Piniella's reasons were for picking Gregg as the closer (and Marmol's occasional control problems probably had something to do with this), his decision allowed him to bring in Marmol whenever he wanted, which I thought was brilliant.

The downside, of course, is that Kevin Gregg is the closer. And he has not been very good. But I'd rather see him be "not very good" with nobody on base in the ninth inning than with runners on second and third and nobody out in the 7th.

The problem is Gregg is doing so poorly that he won't last as the closer and this whole experiment won't work. Pretty soon you'll be seeing Kevin Gregg (or Angel Guzman) coming into the toughest game situations in the 7th inning instead of Marmol.

Which just goes to show you how scared MLB teams are to try something new, regardless of how much sense it makes.

Image by joyosity

Are Superstars Drafted or Developed?

The draft is a time of expectations and excitement. Will a top pick pay off or not? Will a late rounder pull a Mike Piazza to defy all odds and prove scouts wrong? And what role will Boras play in the future of the game this year?

The Cubs are a great example—they've been absolutely terrible at producing position players that turn out to be great ML players (more on that another time). They've developed their share of pitchers, but they've had a hard time with position players. Why is that? Is it bad drafting or bad developing?

Great Players Are Drafted

This is probably what most people think. You draft a great player because he's going to be great, regardless of what team picks him. Some players don't need any help to become superstars. Sure, they're in the minority, but they exist.

These guys dominate in college (or even high school) and zip through the minors with no problem. They are the naturals, the studs that will make it to the bigs no matter who drafts them or how crappy their system is.

Here we're talking about Mark Prior, Joe Mauer, Rafael Palmeiro, Mark Grace, Albert Pujols, the Upton brothers, Tim Lincecum, Joba Chamberlain, David Price, Ryan Braun, Matt Wieters (so say all the experts), and Stephen Strasburg (see how he compares to Prior).

And then you have guys that shot up to the Bigs without even stopping at the minor leagues:


From MLB.com.

As you can see, a lot of these guys didn't pan out. But the idea here is that some guys just don't need a lot of time or development to become studs. The Pirates could've drafted Albert Pujols and he would've been a star either way.

Great Players Are Developed

Adjusting to pro ball isn't easy. Most guys need to learn how to play a full season, how to adjust to better competition, how NOT to bee the star of their team, the grind of a season, the travel, being away from home, etc.

These are the guys that have a ton of talent, but need to have time to let it bloom and develop. This is where everybody else gets grouped.

If the right coaches and teammates are around him, it will happen sooner. If not, it may take a long time or it may not happen at all, which is kind of scary. Who knows, maybe there were some superstars that just couldn't' make it out of the Cubs system because of the way their program works (or doesn't work). You never know....

Look at Corey Patterson: everyone thought he'd be a stud. He was drafted third overall but the Cubs just couldn't wait and brought him up too soon...it hindered him and now he's scuffling with the Nationals' AAA team. The development just didn't happen the way it should've. The team and the player both share the blame.

The real answer is both, obviously. You need to be skilled (and lucky) at drafting the no-brainers but you also need to recognize which players have the potential to be good and if you're the right team that can develop that talent along with them. Are the Nationals the right fit for Strasburg? It doesn't matter because everyone thinks he's going to be one of these no-brainer picks.

Time will tell.

Is Stephen Strasburg Better Than Mark Prior?

There has been a ton of hype surrounding this year's most likely top pick in the MLB draft: Stephen Strasburg. This guy's getting more hype than Mark Prior. With Prior, nobody was sure if he was even going to go first in the draft or not (he was the second pick because the Twins didn't want to spend too much money...they got Joe Mauer instead).

No such debate with this kid—the Nationals say they're going to pay whatever it takes to get him. That's how good they think he's going to be.

Anyway, let's take a look at both these kids' final seasons in college to see how they stack up against each other:



Right off the bat, a few things jump off the page: Prior and Strasburg absolutely dominated their leagues. Prior has less walks but Strasburg has more Ks and allows fewer hits. When it comes to the all-important WHIP (walks + hits / IP), Strasburg has the edge.

Let's take a look at what they did the season before the hype began:



Prior had an OK year while Strasburg flat-out dominated. I don't know that this "proves" anything about Strasburg being better than Prior, but it does show that he's been really really good for more than just one college season.

And let's not forget that Prior hasn't pitched in years...he may never pitch again for all we know. So you never know when it comes to this stuff.

So all the hype and money he's going to get is only going to prove itself as time goes on. For the sake of the Nationals and their fans, I sure hope they get their money's worth.

Your move, Boras.

Image from More Hardball