Can Drew Stubbs be as Good as Joey Votto?

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 26, 2009 8:00 AM EDT in Off-season Comment 88 comments

We all know Joey Votto was by far the best player on the Reds this past season. He single-handedly carried the offense on his broad and capable shoulders. Some say he is more than a man but less than a god, like some kind of demi-god, or archangel, or X-man. He posted an impressive 4.4 WAR according to FanGraphs. That is solid All-Star-level production. Joey Votto is good at baseball. But is he really the best player on the team? Consider the following:

Drew Stubbs came up in mid-August and saw action in just 42 games. He looked all right at the plate, holding his own and posting a slash line of .267/.323/.439. That OPS of .762 is nearly identical to his career minor league OPS of .765. Of course, he hit for more power and got on base less (his career minor league line is .269/.364/.401), but considering the small sample size it's still a pretty accurate reflection of the skill set he showed in the minors. This isnt a wild aberration like Chris Dickerson's debut in '08, and I think it is totally reasonable to believe he can continue to hit like a league-average hitter. His solid walk rate (he's never had an OBP lower than .353 at any minor-league level), decent-but-not-shabby ISO (steadily around .150), steady K-rates, and luminous BABIP rates (kid gets a ton of infield hits) scream "consistent" to me. He is precisely the kind of hitter whose minor league numbers translate well to the majors.

His early projections for next year aren't as optimistic about his future performance though. ZiPS sees him posting a measly .653 OPS for next season. As we talked about a few days ago, Bill James projects him much better, foreseeing a .726 OPS. Not as good as his small-sample-sized performance from the end of '09, but not as Taverasian as ZiPS thinks. Now, normally I trust these advanced projection systems more than I trust my gut, but on this one I think they are missing the mark. I think, for the reasons stated above, Stubbs is far more likely to OPS around .750 than .650.

So if Stubbs hits like a league-average hitter, then how can he be as good as Joey Votto, the Joey Votto who OPS'd .981, posted a .418 wOBA, and stole my heart?

Checking the WAR leaderboards over at FanGraphs, one particular player really caught my eye. He was the most valuable center fielder in the Major Leagues last year. He's not Grady Sizemore, Curtis Granderson, Torii Hunter, or Matt Kemp. He's not Jacoby Ellsbury, Shane Victorino, or B.J. Upton. He's Franklin Gutierrez, and he's the best gloveman in the league.

Gutierrez OPS'd .764 last season, his first as a Mariner. He was a tick above league-average with the bat, accumulating 6.3 BRAR. But boy, he was a '64 Fender Stratocaster in classic white with triple single-coil pickups and a wammy bar in the field. He posted 28.5 FRAR in 153 games, the best mark in all of baseball at any position. This was good for 5.8 total WAR.

Stubbs was nearly equal to Gutierrez with the glove last season, albeit in a small sample size. Stubbs posted a UZR of 7.7 in just 42 games, which extrapolates into a UZR/150 of 22.3. Of course, it is not a foregone conclusion that Stubbs can keep up that level of glovesmanship over a full season. But all the scouting reports say that he can. Since he was drafted in '06 (ahead of Tim Lincecum), he's been heralded as a future gold-glover. It is not good science to take such a small sample and use it as a representative sample, but in this case I think Stubbs really is that good. His minor league TotalZone numbers think so (found at minorleaguesplits), the scouts think so, and so I think so.

So Gutierrez had the best season according to WAR of any center fielder in the league last season, and his game is nearly identical to that of Drew Stubbs. A league-average bat and an elite glove at a premium position makes for a very valuable player.

So what is the takeaway from all this? At the very least, we can see how there is much, much more to winning baseball games than just hitting the ball with the bat. Votto is an elite hitter, but he plays a weak defensive position and is merely average there in comparison to his peers. Stubbs is the exact opposite of Votto, with an average bat and an elite glove. I'm not ready to seriously consider Stubbs to be the same caliber of player that Votto is (though it makes for a hooky title), but I can envision a future, as early as next season, where this is the case.

3 recs | Comment 88 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Drew Stubbs cannot, and will not ever be as good as Joey Votto.

Sure, defensively Stubbs is freaking awesome, but as a MLB hitter, he’ll regress to his MiLB norms/means.

by Highlifeman21 on Oct 26, 2009 9:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think you may have missed the point of the article

but then, I think maybe Scrabbles should have used the word “valuable” instead of “good.”

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

what's the difference between "value" and "good"?

i dont see it.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 26, 2009 9:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

semantics

To me, “value” is an estimate of what a player provides to his team. “Good” implies a level of skill so that two players with the same amount of “good” have similar abilities. It’s sort of the difference between performance and true talent level. Single season WAR and UZR are measures of performance, not really estimates of true talent level. It may just be me, but to say someone is as good as someone else implies a discussion of true talent level, not performance.

It’s nit picking, I know.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 10:01 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought his point was about talent, though

He’s saying that Drew’s talent is mostly wrapped up in fielding (premium position, and better-than-average fielder at that position), whereas Votto’s talent is mostly wrapped in offense (~average fielder at 1B, but 1B is a below-average fielding position). And thus, in terms of net performance (or value), they might contribute equally.

I’m still not sold on Drew hitting in the big leagues, but I sure hope he could be league average. I’m worried that Carlos Gomez might be a better comp, though, at least in terms of overall production.
-j

I write at:
Beyond the Boxscore
Red Reporter
Basement-Dwellers.com
Twitter: @jinazreds

by JinAZ on Oct 26, 2009 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

like I said

it was nit picking. I’m not sure I buy it though, but it’s a minor detail and has little to do with the overriding point that being an excellent defender can be just as valuable as being an excellent hitter.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Depends on how much value you place on premium defense

I don’t buy most of these recent fly by night defensive metrics, but I do know that Drew Stubbs is elite defensively, and I’d say that has to at least put him in the value argument compared to an excellent hitter.

So, is Stubbs’s elite D as value as Votto’s bat? Probably not, but it’s looking like it’ll be a boring offseason, so why not have this discussion?

by Highlifeman21 on Oct 26, 2009 5:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

fly by night

some very intelligent people are trying to quantify a mathmatically complicated reality. There are definitely different ways to skin a cat, but to imply that these metrics are poorly though out is inaccurate.

by Dave from Louisville on Oct 26, 2009 9:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Infant stages

Defensive metrics cannot accurately assign value to runs saved/prevented

Until they can, they are fly by night

by Highlifeman21 on Oct 26, 2009 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stubbs might have remotely similar "value" to the Reds, but in terms of talent, he's nowhere fathomably close to Votto

As already stated somewhere in this thread, Votto’s value stems from his offense, whereas Stubbs’s value stems from his defense. In that sense, they have similar value to the Reds b/c Stubbs’s defense is that damn good, while Votto’s offense is similarly that damn good.

However, I don’t know who the Hell was wearing Stubbs’s jersey in August & September at the plate, b/c that sure as Hell wasn’t Drew Stubbs. Stubbs needs to continue to do stuff he’s never done in his professional career to be in the same talent discussion as Joey Votto. Since I don’t expect Stubbs to continue that nonsense at the plate, he won’t be as talented as Votto.

Should prove interesting to see Stubbs’s true talent level with a bigger sample size at the MLB level, and then we can also get a better idea of his value to the Reds.

by Highlifeman21 on Oct 26, 2009 4:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

over a larger sample size

I think Stubbs is more likely to maintain his numbers than Votto is.

Stubbs’ numbers are not that far out of line from his minor league numbers. Votto’s are much better than his minor league numbers.

I think Joey’s going to come back to earth eventually.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Oct 26, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

This is a good way to point out how important defensive value is

but I think the more relevant question is, can Drew Stubbs be as good/valuable as Chris Dickerson? If Dickerson can stay healthy, I’m not sure who is better overall.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 9:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Dickerson loves the planet more than Drew Stubbs

by Brendanukkah on Oct 26, 2009 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a surprise

Dickerson’s from California. Stubbs is from Texas.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Oct 26, 2009 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

that's geographicist

"And then there was the USAID guy in Kandahar who drove a giant pink Cadillac, which the locals set on fire one day. If you wanted to destroy something symbolic during a riot, you just could not do better than that. Good stuff." - Ghosts of Alexander

by Cy Schourek on Oct 26, 2009 6:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah because california is sooooooooo great for the environment

the home of limousine liberals.

i mean sometimes Walt is like a prison shower, you know it is gonna happen, but it isn’t a good thing.

by justin007000 on Oct 26, 2009 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

California may be screwy in many ways

But they are the most energy-efficient state in the union.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Oct 26, 2009 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

result in live style changes do to the roling blackouts?

i mean sometimes Walt is like a prison shower, you know it is gonna happen, but it isn’t a good thing.

by justin007000 on Oct 26, 2009 7:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Nah

The rolling blackouts were courtesy of Enron, and (for now at least) are history, just like Enron is.

California is very environmentally conscious. They’ve led the charge on fuel-efficient cars. The Bush administration tried to block their attempts to mandate higher fuel efficiency standards. You’d think a Texan like him would support state’s rights, but nooooo.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Oct 26, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well i know that they are history

but i was just curious if people made lasting changes during that time.

i mean sometimes Walt is like a prison shower, you know it is gonna happen, but it isn’t a good thing.

by justin007000 on Oct 26, 2009 9:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ken Lay went to my (old) high school.

That is all.

People Don't Kill People. Burning Couches Kill People.

by crolfer on Oct 27, 2009 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

and now he's dead

what does that tell you?

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 27, 2009 1:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

That it's hard to tell the difference between Lay and Lie?

by Brendanukkah on Oct 27, 2009 2:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

or maybe Crolfer's high school is CURSED!!!

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 27, 2009 2:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I've got no numbers to back me up

but I think it’s because of the weather. For huge parts of California (nearly all of it, if you weight by population) it never gets very cold, and it doesn’t really get all that hot in the summer.

Even in LA, lots of people don’t even have air conditioning. In the Bay Area, I’d guess that the majority don’t have AC. And those that do don’t use it all summer, like you have to in, say, Missouri.

We just pick our oranges off the tree, and enjoy another beautiful Christmas in shirtsleeves. Too bad they laid off all the cops and closed all the schools. But other than that, we’re cool.

by bbjones on Oct 26, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't think that's it

I suspect the rankings are adjusted to compensate for things like that.

If you look at the map on that link, NY and Maine are also very energy-efficient states, and they have horrible weather.

All Things Bubba: Because how can you not love a baseball player named Bubba?

by BubbaFan on Oct 26, 2009 9:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i guess it would make sense to correct for that.

But it still makes a difference on my electric and gas bills. :)

by bbjones on Oct 26, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey

go fuck yourself

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 26, 2009 10:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hey now

we’ve also got some of the highest income and sales taxes in the country, and despite that our state is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, billions of dollars in debt. Our school system is something like 47th in the country. The prison system is run for the benefit of the prison union and the prison companies, while maintaining a sky-high recidivism rate. Our government is completely dysfunctional, our roads are falling apart, and the drought will likely be exacerbated by the complete collapse of the Delta levee system.

But (as I said), other than that, we’re cool.

by bbjones on Oct 27, 2009 11:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is great hear another 20th century capitalism success story.

thanks bb

To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)

by Madville on Oct 28, 2009 7:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah im joshin' ya

good luck with all that pal :)

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 28, 2009 8:28 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

no its because most of the cities in california are policatically 20 years ahead of the rest of the US

by Dave from Louisville on Oct 26, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

but they're catipolitically 20 years behind

Alway the optimist...I like your think kid...

by boobs on Oct 27, 2009 1:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that it's not certain,

but I will repeat again that I think Dickerson keeps getting the benefit of the doubt while Stubbs doesn’t. To wit:

Dickerson’s career strikeout rate in the minors is way higher than what he did this year in the majors (31.4% in minors, 26% this season) On the flip side, his power dropped significantly (his ISO this year was .098 compared to a career minors ISO around .180.) His BB rate was consistent with his minors numbers.

Stubbs was kind of the reverse. His BB rate dipped dramatically (12.1% in the minors, 7.7% this year in MLB) but his power shot up (.172 ISO in the bigs versus about .140 career in the minors) His K rate was consistent with the minors.

Defensively, both were excellent, so let’s call that a wash. The issue comes down to, will Stubbs increase his walks and/or suffer a decrease in power? Also, will Dickerson find his power again whilst simultaneously keeping his strikeouts down?

It seems to me that people are assuming Stubbs’ power is going to disappear and he’s not going to discover how to walk again, while Dickerson will hit for much more power next year while keeping his BA and OBP high. It COULD work out that way, but I don’t know why the 28 year old injury prone player gets all the love when the 25 year old #1 draft pick with “light tower power” doesn’t.

I'mma let you finish, but....

by nycredsfan on Oct 26, 2009 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

how is saying, "I'm not sure who is better overall"

is considered giving Dickerson all of the love. Who is the better of these two players?
A: .260/.363/.414
B: .269/.364/.401

Those are Dickerson’s and Stubbs’ minor league numbers for their careers. Both have been excellent defensively in the Majors. Which one is better? I don’t know. I do know that Dickerson has hit better in the big leagues though, which is why I asked the question, “can Drew Stubbs be as good/valuable as Chris Dickerson?”

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 10:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i love me some Dickerson

i think he is every bit the CF that Stubbs is, except for the fact that he cant hit lefties. the injuries worry me too, but there is a chance he can overcome those and keep himself healthy. there is no overcoming his splits though.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 26, 2009 11:15 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

which is why I would say his best role is splitting time in LF and CF with Gomes and Stubbs, unless the Reds sign a bigger bat to play LF (nahgonnahappen)

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I didn't necessarily mean you, I'm just seeing a lot of CDick love on here and a bunch of Stubbs skepticism

Not that either isn’t warranted. I just think if you look at where Dickerson was when he was 25, Stubbs is clearly the more promising player, maybe not for this season, but definitely for the future.

Also “I think (Dickerson) is every bit the CF that Stubbs is, except for the fact that he can’t hit lefties. the injuries worry me too.” Those are two pretty huge caveats there. Precisely the fact that he can’t hit lefties or seem to stay healthy means he’s a perfect 4th OF, 2-4 starts a week kind of guy. If Gomes somehow comes back, he gets LF, Stubbs CF, with Dickerson spelling each guy once or twice a week. If Stubbs scuffles, Dickerson can take the starting job away.

I'mma let you finish, but....

by nycredsfan on Oct 26, 2009 11:32 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd be overjoyed it they decided on that scheme for the OF

especially if it means Wlad, Heisey and El Nino are the next in succession. My persistent fear is that it will instead be any of Willy, Laynce and McD filling in and/or starting.

The scales tip to Stubbs by dint of youth, health and platoon splits. However, I don’t think Dickerson’s MLB perfromance so far can be entirely negated. He’s maintained a .383 OBP in 400+ MLB PAs. I’m sure this isn’t sustainable, but despite being 28, Dickerson has shown gradual, late-blooming improvement as a player – and an enivornmental activist I might add. I’d like to see an earnest head to head that might extend beyond spring training.

Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show

by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Oct 26, 2009 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if I've ever seen a study on this, maybe Justin has

but I wonder which player is more valuable:

            vs LHP (169 PA)      vs RHP (588 PA)
Player A:   .223/.328/.319       .272/.365/.462
Player B:   .263/.351/.388       .269/.365/.403

Is it better to have a player that doesn’t have much of a platoon difference, or one that is clearly stronger in one split, especially when there is a much higher percentage of at bats in that situation. We talk a lot about Dickerson’s platoon splits, but Reds leadoff hitters had 3.5 times more plate appearances against right-handers than lefties last year. Obviously that would change some if Dickerson had more at bats there, but I doubt it would drop to less than a 3-to-1 rate. Yes, Dickerson does have a platoon split, but should that keep him from getting 2/3rds of the at bats in CF?

Yes, health is a big issue, but I don’t think that should preclude a player from winning a position. Let him get injured before you take him out of the lineup.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Let them compete for the position

I mention youth and health to suggest that Stubbs has a better chance to outstrip expectations over the course of a full, healthy season. If we’ve decided he’s outgrown the minors, he shouldn’t be playing 1/3 of the time. He’ll need some MLB reps to get up to speed, which may mean he’s not as good as Dickerson right out of the gates. The platoon splits suggest he can play fulltime, which allows his defense to be installed permanently in CF and for him to get PAs every day.

Try any formulation that works, but if Dickerson is taking all the PAs vs. RHP in centerfield, there doesn’t seem to be much of a point to keeping Stubbs, and his upside, around.

Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show

by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Oct 26, 2009 3:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

you basically just expressed my feelings much better than I did

If CDick outplays him, fine, but since Dickerson clearly shouldn’t be starting against lefties, that leaves a bit of a gap in CF, but a legit prospect like Stubbs needs to start more than twice a week. So if Dickerson outplays him for CF, I guess Stubbs goes to AAA, but that doesn’t seem like the best use for him at this point.

Meanwhile, I think Dickerson has a limited ceiling and he’s probably just about reached his full potential. So maybe having him play 2-4 times a week spelling Gomes and Stubbs would be the best use for him. (of course, if Gomes isn’t re-signed it’s a moot point)

I'mma let you finish, but....

by nycredsfan on Oct 26, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I made my point well

Why is it better for Stubbs that he can be mediocre against both lefties and righties than it is for Dickerson that he can hit righties well, but struggles against lefties. If both of their total numbers were basically identical, it seems to me that I’d rather have Dickerson in CF vs. RHP and find someone to cover the PA against lefties, which could be Stubbs. At the very least, Dickerson’s overall numbers would be the same as Stubbs even if he played against everybody (based on the MiLB numbers).

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 4:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I guess I'm thinking upside

Stubbs has the very real potential to be better against both lefties and righties than Dickerson, who’s probably at his peak of ability right now. Assuming they’d put up similar numbers this season, I’d much rather have Stubbs continue to develop as the everyday CF rather than only give him 200 PAs this season just so Dickerson can put up marginally better numbers. Plus, I’m convinced over a full season Stubbs would be worth a significant amount more than Dickerson in CF.

I'mma let you finish, but....

by nycredsfan on Oct 26, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

worth a significant amount more defensively that is

I'mma let you finish, but....

by nycredsfan on Oct 26, 2009 7:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

remember when Justin said there was a conspiracy

because Dickerson had 3x as many ABs against righties as lefties, and that the organization didn’t want to give him the opportunity to face lefties?

That was fun.

by Cy Schourek on Oct 26, 2009 6:47 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

hey

remember that time i told you to shut the fuck up.

i mean sometimes Walt is like a prison shower, you know it is gonna happen, but it isn’t a good thing.

by justin007000 on Oct 26, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

does that mean we've got TWO guys

who might be better than Votto?

That, sir, seems like a mighty claim.

by bbjones on Oct 26, 2009 9:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

three guys

counting rosales

Alway the optimist...I like your think kid...

by boobs on Oct 27, 2009 1:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apples and Oranges

Why compare Stubbs to Votto? They play different positions. Any manager will tell you that you win games with good defense: catcher, shortstop and center field. These 3 positions require your best skilled players. Not that the other positions are not important, but these three can cover a lot of mistakes that other fielders make. In other words, managers will sacrifice a bit of batting average and/or power, if players at these 3 positions are exceptional. When is the last time you get a good average and power hitting catcher, ss or CF? That’s why the Reds were able to win with Bench, Concepcion and Geronimo. If Stubbs have an elite glove, I’d put him out there if he hits .267/.323/.439 and bats him 6th or 7th in the order. If he runs well, makes no mistakes on the field, backs up LF and RF, hits the cut-off man on his throws, steals his share of bases, scores his share of runs, run the bases intelligently, why not? Let Dickerson and Stubbs fight it out. I am sure one of them will come out shining.

by Richard L on Oct 26, 2009 10:35 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Larue-Lopez-Griffey

actually fits your bill and, uh, the Reds weren’t too good in ‘04-’05

by Cy Schourek on Oct 26, 2009 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Larue-Lopez vs. Bench-Concepcion

Don’t think your combination will fit my bill. Not even close. There is no comparison.

by Richard L on Oct 27, 2009 12:46 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The crazy thing about Votto's numbers

is he did it in a year where he had health problems and personal turmoil. It seemed like sometimes he also said to hell with it and hacked a bit when the game and/or the season had slipped away.

What’s he gonna do if he feels good and the team is doing somewhere between okay and pretty good or even better?

by ol Pete on Oct 26, 2009 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

agreed, but the only thing I would say to temper the enthusiasm

is that his BABIP was .373 this year, which isn’t at all sustainable. Votto has always had a high BABIP, but it’s usually been along the lines of .330 to .350. If he settled there, he’d probably put up a line more like .300/.390/.525, which is still really good, but not quite as amazing as this season.

Then again, maybe if he feels better he’ll strike out less and hit more homers.

I'mma let you finish, but....

by nycredsfan on Oct 26, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

My favorite thing about Votto is that he seems to take pride in his game

but not in a questionably selfish fashion (like I perceive from Phillips). He truly seems to be a team player and he’s very open about it. Maybe it’s all for show, but I really don’t get the impression that it is. He seems to live and die with the team’s success and failure. It’s a total 180 from the previous leaders on the team. The question is, will that wear him out faster if the team struggles?

Oh, and he’s dreamy.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

wow non statsy things on Votto

the intangibles if you will. It is fun when you pretend baseball isn’t played by robots.

i mean sometimes Walt is like a prison shower, you know it is gonna happen, but it isn’t a good thing.

by justin007000 on Oct 26, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs

Stubbs can be as valuable as Votto,

or at least close. While I don’t anticipate him hitting for a high average, he’ll get on base plenty, hit double-digit home runs and, if the Reds let him run, steal 40 bases. His defense will be among the league’s best.

Seeing Stubbs struggle with inconsistency at the plate in 2010 wouldn’t surprise me, but he’s going to be a valuable player in the long run.

I keep waiting for Dickerson to play himself out of contention, maybe because he was a 16th-round pick way back in 2003, but he never does. He’s proven his worth, though, and he can be productive despite not playing every day. Or, he can be a nice trade chip.

We Are ... Marshall!

by Thundering Turtle on Oct 26, 2009 12:39 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

some of Dickerson's "surprise" value

is likely the fact that he’s playing in his prime right now. He has a maturity in his approach at the plate – working the count, going the other way – that makes him successful. I imagine he wouldn’t be much without that maturity.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 12:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's an interesting question whether Stubbs upside

or Dickerson’s maturity will bear more fruit. I honestly think the Reds are in an enviable position in CF. The most easily avoidable, and thus most likely, way for them to fuck it up is if they insist of giving Willy Taveras playing time.

I also wonder, come Spring Training 2010, how interesting the question of Heisey vs. Dickerson or Francisco vs. Dickerson will be in LF, especially if Gomes isn’t signed, assuring he’ll be getting starts vs. LHP.

Yeah, those guys and the Cincinnati Reds. They're a terrible football team. / Because they're a baseball team? / Exactly. You know who's the worst football team? The Philadelphia Flyers. - Best Show

by RijoSaboCaseyWKRP on Oct 26, 2009 4:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm starting to think Gomes won't be back

I’d actually be interested in seeing an outfield of Dickerson-Stubbs-Bruce, and I think that theres enough OF depth to work that if any of those 3 falter. There’s only a problem if 2 of them get hurt, and then its a Francisco-Balentien-Bruce OF and the Reds are going to lose.

Joe Posnanski has been saying that he wants to see how a team would do if they just got the 8 best defenders they could and put them out there, and it looks like the Reds could do that next year…I’d like to see it work out, but I’m skeptical.

Also, great picture. If Stubbs becomes as good as Votto in an empty stadium, will anybody notice?

by Cy Schourek on Oct 26, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

slyde will

because slyde doesn’t watch baseball games.

i mean sometimes Walt is like a prison shower, you know it is gonna happen, but it isn’t a good thing.

by justin007000 on Oct 26, 2009 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

i gotta say

i used to love your avatar. it looked like a neon 80’s keytar player. then i just clicked to see it bigger, and i realized it’s a neon 80’s thug with a Kalashnikov. not nearly as cool.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 26, 2009 10:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hmm, I never realized that

a keytar player would’ve been way cooler.

As it is, it’s just Adobe Illustrator plus this pic.

by Cy Schourek on Oct 27, 2009 6:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cy Cy Cy

You are forgetting the cog in Dusty’s wheel — Wily!!!
You don’t Wily won’t be back?
(And so will Hernia, but he don’t do OF)
but don’t get carried away about Drew Stumps ‘cause he ain’t made Dusty’s team yet.
All those outfielders – Wlad, Laynce, Bruce, C-Dick, Jonny,Stubbs…
But Dusty will go with Gomes – Wily and Bruce
or if Gomes is gone then C-Dick/Wlad – Wily and Bruce
I ain’t heard nothing about Wily being dropped. Not saying that Stubbs won’t play but you know Dusty.

To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)

by Madville on Oct 27, 2009 12:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Very Interesting

Is Stubbs that good on D, or is he more of a Jim Edmonds/Aaron Rowand type of guy who makes amazing plays a lot?

Nyjer Morgan had a similar type of season to that of Gutierrez, and if not for his injury might have surpassed that number put up by G.

With those numbers, how do you explain a guy like Mike Cameron only worth a little over 4? Is his defense just not as good, or is his offense just that much worse?

by backtocali on Oct 26, 2009 12:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Stubbs is that good

in fact, I’d say that he really didn’t make that many “wow” plays because he takes very good routes on balls and crazy-smoove speed. His biggest problem defensively right now appears to be that he doesn’t take charge enough, but when he takes ownership of the outfield, I have little doubt that he’ll be one of the top 3 defensive outfielders in the league based on what I saw last season.

Cameron is still good defensively, but he’s a couple ticks below Morgan and Gutierrez, according to bUZR in 2009.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure I buy Nyjer over Cam

by ol Pete on Oct 26, 2009 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just talking about 2009

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 26, 2009 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We can dig it!

by Brendanukkah on Oct 26, 2009 4:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I thought Cam’s 2009 was better than his 2008. I’m not sure he’s lost anything defensively. I’m still doubtful and I kind of like Nyjer although the hoopla around him seems excessive.

by ol Pete on Oct 27, 2009 11:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know if Stubbs is 20+runs/150 games good

I don’t know if anyone is. Tango has said that you need 2 or 3 full seasons of fielding data to get an accurate gauge of a player’s true talent. If Stubbs is really more like a 10 runs/150 games in UZR, that knocks his value down some.

And I’m still concerned about his ability to make contact at the major league level based on his minor league averages. If he doesn’t hit .250, it will be hard to put up an average OBP.

by ken on Oct 27, 2009 9:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

When I say that I think he is that good, I don’t mean that he’s 20+runs/150 games (I hate the 150 game measurement). What I mean is that he’s good enough to be one of the top 3 defensive fielders in the game. Some years he may have 20+ runs defensively, some years it may only be 10 runs defensively.

One issue to consider of the precise number of runs a player saves is that if Gutierrez, Morgan, and Stubbs are suddenly the 3 best defensive center fielders in the game, their numbers will actually be lower than if each one had entered a league with a lower level of performance in CF on their own. That is, the fact that all three of them are in the league now means that the average number of plays made in CF is going to go up, which means that their runs saved over average is likely to go down. We need a Heisenberg Uncertainty principle for defensive metrics.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 27, 2009 10:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Heisenberg?

that guys was a jerk.

by Charlie Scrabbles on Oct 27, 2009 10:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

And his plane didn't fly good either

To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)

by Madville on Oct 27, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs

Will Stubbs be as good as Ceasar Geronimo

Will Stubbs have a good enough ST to get a starting job with Dusty as manager
I’ve grown to like Stubbs and my educated guess is that he’ll be just fine next year. Hit him some home runs, steal some bases, get some RBIS, play great defense and we’ll all be saying Chris WHo ‘bout this time next year…and I love me some Chris Dickerson too but he’ what he is …Stumps appears top have a considerable upside if he gets to play.

Jay Bruce will become a major league baseball STAR, starting in April, 2010.....

by Madville on Oct 26, 2009 2:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Who are Stubbs' comps?

It’s pretty easy to come up with comps for Votto. BBRef has Helton as most similar through age 24, and also lists Wally Joyner, James Loney, Adrian Gonzalez. It’s not too hard to imagine Votto with a career in that vein.

What great-glove, average-bat guy do we remember historically as being about as good as Wally Joyner? Mads says, in his inimitable way, Cesar Geronimo. Certainly Ozzie was the top of that heap. But it seems like it gets pretty thin after that.

I tried to get fangraphs to show me the career UZR leaderboard, but I failed.

by bbjones on Oct 26, 2009 9:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes

Drew Stubbs can be as good (valuable) as Votto. If he can continue to be a league-average hitter and a Gold Glove level CF, those two along with Bruce make an awsome young nucleus. Plus, a run saved is more valuable than a run scored (by Pythagorus), and if he’s really saving that many runs on defense he could be more valuable than Votto in a year or two.

The better question is, Will he? I think so. I brought this up in the Bill James/ZiPS thread; I don’t like projections for individual hitters. A hitter’s improvement/decline doesn’t seem nearly as important as either his previous history or how his group of “similar” players progressed. I think this is one place where scouts still have about a mile head start over stats guys – predicting the future. They can see that a pitcher has a mechanical flaw, or a batter’s stats may not be as good because he’s working on a particular part of his swing; the projections can’t.

Maybe the Reds drafted Stubbs too high, but not that much too high; the guy obviously has a boatload of talent. I firmly believe we’ll see both a OBP near his minor league average, and a SLG closer to his time in Cinci. I’m beginning to be convinced, though, that Brook Jacoby isn’t the guy that’s going to bring that out of him; I think, for the sake of Stubbs, Bruce and Frasier that Jacoby needs to go.

"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"

by sidnancy on Oct 26, 2009 10:27 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Talents - Dime a dozen out there

Boatload of talent meant nothing. Hamilton was a great talent and I am sure much better than Stubbs and Dickerson. Got to have the head to go with it. We have to measure players by what they do on the field not what’s on paper.

by Richard L on Oct 27, 2009 12:50 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hogwash

I’d much rather have a team full of “boatload talent” guys than a bunch of “professional-hitting,” scraptastic, clutch, play-the-game-the-right-way guys with limited baseball skills.

by bengalred on Oct 27, 2009 9:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hogwash?

Ta ta for now.

People Don't Kill People. Burning Couches Kill People.

by crolfer on Oct 27, 2009 12:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Apropos of nothing

Taveras made the Top 15 fielders of 2009 list in THT. The ratings are by Sean Smith’s TotalZone. By UZR, Taveras was a 8.3 for the year (12.2/150 games). As awkward as he sometimes looked, his speed let him catch up to a lot of balls this year.

by ken on Oct 27, 2009 9:56 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I think we were always a bit unfair to Willy

yes, he took some awkward routes to balls occasionally, but I think our general dislike of Taveras caused those bad plays to stick out. The thing is that every defensive player is going to make mistakes and take bad routes or throw a ball away. That’s why we need a large sample of data to really get a clear picture of a player’s skill level.

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 27, 2009 10:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree Slyde

I think we were pretty fair at the beginning of the season, despite the fact that it was obvious that wily was the answer in CF. He can’t hit and that part of the equation is more important than how great a CF he is. There are a tremendous amount of guys that play D at the MLB level but just can’t hit. Wily is one. therefore fuck him…go Drew

To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)

by Madville on Oct 27, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

err that's Wily was NOT the answer in CF.

To understand Israel and the Middle East, you must understand Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. -Glenn Beck (former cocaine addict and pedophile.)

by Madville on Oct 27, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think Dusty overused (his) Willy

Taveras’ health and durability were well-known questions coming into the year. Dusty nevertheless started him nearly every day, even after he said his hamstring was bothering him in early June. A terrible way to manage who guy that relies so much on his speed.

by ken on Oct 27, 2009 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

definitely

Definitely a good argument.

by Slyde on Oct 27, 2009 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

So, wait. Are you saying Dusty isn't a very good manager?

I’m confused

I'mma let you finish, but....

by nycredsfan on Oct 27, 2009 12:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Dusty was a good manager

Bob – ‘Walt…give me your analysis of Dusty Baker’s performance for 2009’
Walt- ’ Hell Bob I wasn’t privy to everything early in the season you know that,,but I’ll tell you this, Dusty’s a player’s manager and he’s won a heck of a lot of games.
Bob – ‘Why did he play Taveris and Gonzales and that other Beaner…Incarnation at 3B so much then?’
Walt’ Those guys were paid to d a a job and they just all happened to have bad years at the same time…it happens in baseball.’
Bob ‘So you think it was bad luck and injuries and not bad field mangement?’
Walt ’ Dusty’s my boy…after I got rid of those two losers that were fucking us over at SS and 3B look how good the team did..and that is with a terrible SS to boot’. Plus he brought back Drone McDougal and that was a feel good story that put some butts in the seats… Not many managers could have taken that group of guys and finished as strong as Dusty"
Bob‘I guess you’re right…maybe I should give him an extension’
Walt ’ Wait until you see the kind of year Wily Taveris is going to give us in 2010…he’s due’
Bob ’ Set it up Walt and the 3 of will get together maybe in January and explore a long term agreement’
Walt ’ For me?’