Cub's Prospect Watch And Development Discussion Thread

[beckdawg]

So with 27 games under mendy's belt I took a look at his fielding metrics. It's about what I expected. He's got an absurdly good 34.4 UZR/150 at 2B which is a higher than I expected. As a reference point, of the qualified players at 2B Pedroia at 18.6 leads the majors. Before he was called up I made the comment that I thought he'd be plus to potentially plus plus there. Having seen him there and having these metrics to look at seems to indicate he's probably one of the better defensive 2B in the league unless he's just been really flukey but that seems unlikely based on some of the sick plays he's made.

The down side here is he's been pretty much what I expected in CF which is to say below average. At -3.3 UZR/150, he's been servicable there but not particularly good. Baez doesn't have enough data apparently to get marks but what he has done but from the little data that there's it's almost assuredly going to show him being worse when he finally does get enough data as his RZR is .750 vs .854 for Alcantara.

 

[dabynsky]

So with 27 games under mendy's belt I took a look at his fielding metrics. It's about what I expected. He's got an absurdly good 34.4 UZR/150 at 2B which is a higher than I expected. As a reference point, of the qualified players at 2B Pedroia at 18.6 leads the majors. Before he was called up I made the comment that I thought he'd be plus to potentially plus plus there. Having seen him there and having these metrics to look at seems to indicate he's probably one of the better defensive 2B in the league unless he's just been really flukey but that seems unlikely based on some of the sick plays he's made.

The down side here is he's been pretty much what I expected in CF which is to say below average. At -3.3 UZR/150, he's been servicable there but not particularly good. Baez doesn't have enough data apparently to get marks but what he has done but from the little data that there's it's almost assuredly going to show him being worse when he finally does get enough data as his RZR is .750 vs .854 for Alcantara.

Are you really using 15ish games at each position to make assessments about a player's fielding abilities. Especially statistics that need about 3 years of data to properly stabilize?

 

[Parade_Rain]

I thought this was timely based upon the current discussion-

‘‘People didn’t even know who was in Triple-A 10 years ago,’’ said Coghlan, 29. ‘‘People didn’t know your name. Now ‘prospects’ are at an all-time high.

‘‘I feel bad for the young kids now because people are putting so much pressure on them. People try to box you in to what type of player you’re going to be. Who’s to say they won’t be great players, but it’s an unfair expectation to put them in an image of what people think they might become.’’

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/2918...re-on-prospects-doesnt-help.html#.U-hLYfldXhI

 

[beckdawg]

Are you really using 15ish games at each position to make assessments about a player's fielding abilities. Especially statistics that need about 3 years of data to properly stabilize?

I never said that it was the end all be all of what he'd be. Some data(even small amounts) is more useful than 0 data.

 

[dabynsky]

I never said that it was the end all be all of what he'd be. Some data(even small amounts) is more useful than 0 data.

No that is not always true, and seriously defensive data requires ridiculous amounts before it is meaningful. It is like trying to draw conclusions based on a single game's worth of plate appearances about a player's offensive ability. Alcantara has looked fine out there, and it will take a long time for meaningful objective data to be out there on his defensive skills.

 

[CSF77]

It is too early to tell with these guys. But there is a pecking order going on here. Baez is higher on the food chain and is hitting #2 while Alcantara got dropped in the order.

D is not the driving force behind the decision making process with the Cubs. I would put it more to is it good enough?
not who is the best at that position.

That is why Bryant will be the long term 3B. D is not the driving factor. His bat will be. Sure he will have to keep working on hisw D and that is a factor why they are tanking him in AAA for the year. But again it is 1 factor.

I wouldn't go by a D metric to force a argument here.

 

[beckdawg]

No that is not always true, and seriously defensive data requires ridiculous amounts before it is meaningful. It is like trying to draw conclusions based on a single game's worth of plate appearances about a player's offensive ability. Alcantara has looked fine out there, and it will take a long time for meaningful objective data to be out there on his defensive skills.

You're confusing meaningful and reliable. It's meaningful that the data is positive because even over 5000 games these stats still count. However, small sample sizes are unreliable because small changes can distort the view. To use your example, saying it's not meaningful is akin to saying if a guy gets a hit in a game it doesn't count because it's a small sample size.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

So should we give Olt another call up next year? It seems to be worth the shot since if he does play well, it adds another trade asset for us. Or if he sticks around he could be a corner IF/OF super sub that would be very valuable to a good team.

 

[brett05]

So should we give Olt another call up next year? It seems to be worth the shot since if he does play well, it adds another trade asset for us. Or if he sticks around he could be a corner IF/OF super sub that would be very valuable to a good team.

He'll never be a trade asset

 

[SilenceS]

He'll never be a trade asset

But he hits homers and walk a lot.

 

[dabynsky]

You're confusing meaningful and reliable. It's meaningful that the data is positive because even over 5000 games these stats still count. However, small sample sizes are unreliable because small changes can distort the view. To use your example, saying it's not meaningful is akin to saying if a guy gets a hit in a game it doesn't count because it's a small sample size.

Well then I suppose it is meaningful that his UZR is now a positive 2.2 and his UZR/150 is 32.6 at CF which is just a shade below 2B defense. Or it could be that numbers like this take a long time to stabilize and don't tell us anything about the player's defensive abilities at a position just like an 0-4 day tells us very little about a hitter's ability.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

He'll never be a trade asset

He already was once, so that thought really has no evidence behind it.

 

[brett05]

But he hits homers and walk a lot.

No he doesn't

 

[brett05]

He already was once, so that thought really has no evidence behind it.

He wasn't an asset then either

 

[FirstTimer]

You're confusing meaningful and reliable. It's meaningful that the data is positive because even over 5000 games these stats still count. However, small sample sizes are unreliable because small changes can distort the view. To use your example, saying it's not meaningful is akin to saying if a guy gets a hit in a game it doesn't count because it's a small sample size.

If the data isn't reliable how can it have meaning?

 

[nwfisch]

Basically if data against the Cubs it doesn't have meaning, but if it's positive it does.

 

[SilenceS]

Basically if data against the Cubs it doesn't have meaning, but if it's positive it does.

:dontsay:

 

[dabynsky]

Basically if data against the Cubs it doesn't have meaning, but if it's positive it does.

Well in this example the OP was arguing that negative data had meaning.

 

[TL1961]

Drawing conclusions on a player after 12-15 games at a position he hasn't played previously on a regular or long-term basis is unfair and inaccurate.

If he takes the wrong angle to fly balls in Coors, which he did twice in one game, we conclude that he is a poor defender?

Or is he a very capable, but inexperienced defender? If he gets better from Game 1 to Game 8 to Game 15, but we analyze a ridiculously small 15 game sample size, won't it skew the numbers?

Pick up a golf club for the first time, play ten rounds, and have someone evaluate the data averaged over those ten rounds. Think that will fairly depict your ability as of Round #10?

Does anyone watching him think he shows signs of being a poor defensive CF? I think he has looked plenty capable - as much or more so as many others playing CF currently. I know the data is supposed to tell us what we don't see with the naked eye. But grading him on the first few weeks? Sorry, I'm not buying it.

 

[TL1961]

Evaluate your toddler as a walker, taking the day he took his first steps through Day #20.

Think the "average" would reflect his Day 20 ability?