The Javier Baez Discussion Thread

[beckdawg]

I have grown tired of the comments about Baez average and atrike outs. He has a MO. Everyone knows it. Life goes on.

What are people supposed to talk about? I mean let's be real he's not doing anything well at this point in the majors. If he had one aspect you can hang your hat on and talk about then fine but he doesn't. Case in point, prior to this season I would bring up how Rizzo still had a good walk rate and his BABIP indicated he might rebound this year. I'd love to sit here and talk about Baez having something like that but he flat out doesn't as far as I can tell. That's a problem for me because if you can't see a path to improvement based on what he's doing then how are you supposed to have any faith in a player?

Now maybe there's a case to be made about a change in mechanics or approach. I've already stated that's not really my bag of tea. If people want to talk about it I'd happily read but I'm just not seeing it. If this were any other non-prospect he'd be getting killed for this level of play. The only difference is we as fans have been told how great a player he is for 2-3 years. If he has an MO at this point it's one of being a poor MLB player. It's not like he's Adam Dunn who's productive despite poor k's/average.

Until that changes people need to stop acting like this is just a speed bump along the way.

 

[beckdawg]

I want to see Castro hitting #2 again.

I think that's the wrong approach. Castro is someone I'd prefer to see hitting 5th/6th presumably with people on. Castro's never going to be a high on base guy. However, with his high average if people are on and he gets a hit that is often more valuable than a walk because it means the potential of scoring where as a walk without the bases loaded just pushes a player over.

 

[beckdawg]

if there still complaints about Baez strikeouts and AVG in 365 days then there concern with him.. till then its a wait n see

If you're not concerned now I feel you're being oblivious to data that is out there. There's a difference between concern and panic. Concern is me pointing out people should be thinking about what happens if we see no improvement next year. After 365 more days at this pace he has 0 value. That's when panic happens. What I don't understand is this prevailing opinion that prospects generally turn around because more often than not players who have bad debuts are just bad players. It's often the other way around where you have someone like Lake play well in a 2 month cup of coffee and then slump hard year two after the majors get a scouting report on him. Also, I want to be clear here, there's a difference between bad debuts with positive peripherals and ones with poor peripherals.

Mike Trout's first call up he hit .220/.281/.390 with a 6.7%/22.2% bb/k rate a .247 BABIP a 20.7% line drive rate, and a 5.4% infield fly rate. His walks are down about 5% off his career marks thus far and his BABIP was down almost 110 points. This is an example of someone who you can say well the peripherals show someone who was perhaps unlucky or not far off where he needed to be in order to be a top player. Contrast those numbers with Baez. Baez is hitting .164/.227/.333 with a 7.1%/41.7% bb/k rate a .235 BABIP, a 12.3% line drive rate, and a 20.8% infield fly rate. As a reference point, the MLB average player this year has a 20.7% line drive rate and 9.6% infield fly rate.

If the K's and triple slash are "boring" talk now to people then let's talk about the batted ball data. Baez is well below the average MLB player in both line drive rate and infield flies. The obvious conclusion here is he's not making good contact. The pitch selection data isn't much better either as it's showing he swings at an alarming number of pitches outside the strike zone.

This isn't to say Baez can't improve but the point I'm trying to make is this belief that he's a minor tweak away from being a good player IMO couldn't be farther from the truth. He's still got to make a rather big change just to get to the point where Lake was where he can play well for a short period of time until the league catches up and makes him adjust again. Lake came up and hit 27.8% LD's last year with 12.5% infield flies in a similar time frame.

 

[chibears55]

If you're not concerned now I feel you're being oblivious to data that is out there. There's a difference between concern and panic. Concern is me pointing out people should be thinking about what happens if we see no improvement next year. After 365 more days at this pace he has 0 value. That's when panic happens. What I don't understand is this prevailing opinion that prospects generally turn around because more often than not players who have bad debuts are just bad players. It's often the other way around where you have someone like Lake play well in a 2 month cup of coffee and then slump hard year two after the majors get a scouting report on him. Also, I want to be clear here, there's a difference between bad debuts with positive peripherals and ones with poor peripherals.

Mike Trout's first call up he hit .220/.281/.390 with a 6.7%/22.2% bb/k rate a .247 BABIP a 20.7% line drive rate, and a 5.4% infield fly rate. His walks are down about 5% off his career marks thus far and his BABIP was down almost 110 points. This is an example of someone who you can say well the peripherals show someone who was perhaps unlucky or not far off where he needed to be in order to be a top player. Contrast those numbers with Baez. Baez is hitting .164/.227/.333 with a 7.1%/41.7% bb/k rate a .235 BABIP, a 12.3% line drive rate, and a 20.8% infield fly rate. As a reference point, the MLB average player this year has a 20.7% line drive rate and 9.6% infield fly rate.

If the K's and triple slash are "boring" talk now to people then let's talk about the batted ball data. Baez is well below the average MLB player in both line drive rate and infield flies. The obvious conclusion here is he's not making good contact. The pitch selection data isn't much better either as it's showing he swings at an alarming number of pitches outside the strike zone.

This isn't to say Baez can't improve but the point I'm trying to make is this belief that he's a minor tweak away from being a good player IMO couldn't be farther from the truth. He's still got to make a rather big change just to get to the point where Lake was where he can play well for a short period of time until the league catches up and makes him adjust again. Lake came up and hit 27.8% LD's last year with 12.5% infield flies in a similar time frame.

What do you do if he still struggling next year ?
You put him in minors and move on to the next guy.

Baez isnt the make or break of putting this team together, sure his early success would put the team in a good place right away but he not irreplaceable now.

You have Alcantara who can play 2B, Castro at SS, Bryant at 3B, and they still have Russell. .

That the reason you dont trade these top prospects/Castro this year and wait

 

[brett05]

I'd argue and I think it's true that teams should never keep their prospects. Given the value they have prior to coming up and the limited success of top specs, they should always be traded for proven talent before being called up. Yes it costs you some guys but let other teams worry about development. Given that MLB has no cap, in some respects this is happening now already.

 

[SilenceS]

What are people supposed to talk about? I mean let's be real he's not doing anything well at this point in the majors. If he had one aspect you can hang your hat on and talk about then fine but he doesn't. Case in point, prior to this season I would bring up how Rizzo still had a good walk rate and his BABIP indicated he might rebound this year. I'd love to sit here and talk about Baez having something like that but he flat out doesn't as far as I can tell. That's a problem for me because if you can't see a path to improvement based on what he's doing then how are you supposed to have any faith in a player?

Now maybe there's a case to be made about a change in mechanics or approach. I've already stated that's not really my bag of tea. If people want to talk about it I'd happily read but I'm just not seeing it. If this were any other non-prospect he'd be getting killed for this level of play. The only difference is we as fans have been told how great a player he is for 2-3 years. If he has an MO at this point it's one of being a poor MLB player. It's not like he's Adam Dunn who's productive despite poor k's/average.

Until that changes people need to stop acting like this is just a speed bump along the way.

I havent been told he is great. I have seen it. He has under 200 fucking at bats at 21 years old. He could come out next year on fire. He could come out next year and suck. Its what 21 year old players do. My head hurts.

 

[SilenceS]

I'd argue and I think it's true that teams should never keep their prospects. Given the value they have prior to coming up and the limited success of top specs, they should always be traded for proven talent before being called up. Yes it costs you some guys but let other teams worry about development. Given that MLB has no cap, in some respects this is happening now already.

Teams are holding on to big prospects and especially TOR type pitchers. To trade out just because there is risk is dumb. Now, it goes case by case because some trade make sense but missing out on the next Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera because of the risk is insane.

How would you like it if the Sox traded Sale because he was unproven?

 

[SilenceS]

If you're not concerned now I feel you're being oblivious to data that is out there. There's a difference between concern and panic. Concern is me pointing out people should be thinking about what happens if we see no improvement next year. After 365 more days at this pace he has 0 value. That's when panic happens. What I don't understand is this prevailing opinion that prospects generally turn around because more often than not players who have bad debuts are just bad players. It's often the other way around where you have someone like Lake play well in a 2 month cup of coffee and then slump hard year two after the majors get a scouting report on him. Also, I want to be clear here, there's a difference between bad debuts with positive peripherals and ones with poor peripherals.

Mike Trout's first call up he hit .220/.281/.390 with a 6.7%/22.2% bb/k rate a .247 BABIP a 20.7% line drive rate, and a 5.4% infield fly rate. His walks are down about 5% off his career marks thus far and his BABIP was down almost 110 points. This is an example of someone who you can say well the peripherals show someone who was perhaps unlucky or not far off where he needed to be in order to be a top player. Contrast those numbers with Baez. Baez is hitting .164/.227/.333 with a 7.1%/41.7% bb/k rate a .235 BABIP, a 12.3% line drive rate, and a 20.8% infield fly rate. As a reference point, the MLB average player this year has a 20.7% line drive rate and 9.6% infield fly rate.

If the K's and triple slash are "boring" talk now to people then let's talk about the batted ball data. Baez is well below the average MLB player in both line drive rate and infield flies. The obvious conclusion here is he's not making good contact. The pitch selection data isn't much better either as it's showing he swings at an alarming number of pitches outside the strike zone.

This isn't to say Baez can't improve but the point I'm trying to make is this belief that he's a minor tweak away from being a good player IMO couldn't be farther from the truth. He's still got to make a rather big change just to get to the point where Lake was where he can play well for a short period of time until the league catches up and makes him adjust again. Lake came up and hit 27.8% LD's last year with 12.5% infield flies in a similar time frame.

Man, are you trying to go with LD rates as a proven ground on under a 200 bat sample? You still have no concept of sample size and how much they change in the blink of an eye. Just like when you said Baez doesnt walk and within a week it jumped 2% points. The samples are to small to come to any sort of conclusion on lucky or unlucky.

 

[Parade_Rain]

What are people supposed to talk about?

"Baez struck out". Thanks, Captain Obvious. I'm sure it will continue right through the last game of the season. Is that really what you call discussion? I call it a broken record. Let me make a sentence that everyone can feel free to copy and paste in the game thread for the rest of the season. Here it is-

Baez struck out.

I mean let's be real he's not doing anything well at this point in the majors.

Baez struck out.

Now maybe there's a case to be made about a change in mechanics or approach.

Oh, he clearly needs to change his approach. Changing something in his mechanics will be up to him. There isn't anyone who can force that. I'm sure you understand that.

Until that changes people need to stop acting like this is just a speed bump along the way.

I don't see anyone acting as if this is just a speed bump. How people are acting is that this has been his MO at every level. Until mid next season, there isn't any reason to get too worked up about his process and output. If he's doing the same thing then, it's time to send him back down and drop him from the top prospect list. Until that time, there is no reason to be overly optimistic or overly pessimistic.

 

[brett05]

Teams are holding on to big prospects and especially TOR type pitchers. To trade out just because there is risk is dumb. Now, it goes case by case because some trade make sense but missing out on the next Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera because of the risk is insane.

How would you like it if the Sox traded Sale because he was unproven?

Not possible for Sale. He was promoted prior to being able to be traded

 

[beckdawg]

What do you do if he still struggling next year ?
You put him in minors and move on to the next guy.

Well my personal argument is you use him as a trade piece before you get to that point. Whether or not that's realistic or what will happen is obviously another story. I've made the comment here that I wondered if his promotion was done in order to give them a reference point on where he was. If you compare him and Bryant, Bryant had roughly 400 PAs between AFL and AA before a promotion to AAA. He obviously destroyed in those. I believe Baez had around 300 in AAA this year and really only played well in June and July which amounts for 200ish PAs. Bryant's 22 with the book on him being a great approach. Baez is 21 and the book on him is often over aggression. AAA to MLB is considered the hardest jump for a prospect. Arguably if you're not going to promote Bryant faster then why on earth would you promote Baez as fast as they did? And don't get me wrong I'm fine with the way they've handled Bryant but the contrast between the two seems off.

My wonder is if the cubs brought him up to see if that adjustment was a short one as it was with A+ and to an extent AAA or if it was going to be a long one. Keep in mind it took around 100 PAs to adjust to A+ and AAA before he was at least semi-useful. We're currently at 215 for Baez and the 100 PAs in September were actually worse than the 100 PAs he's had in August. As I've suggested with the numbers, it sure seems like he's 2 years away minimum from being a productive major league player. I can't really see a light turning on next year and suddenly Baez is a .270/.340/.550 hitter with 35 HRs. A more likely case for positive for him would be like .230-.240 hitter with adjust the other numbers accordingly. Then maybe the following year you get to that line and that's assuming he fixes his issues.

Given the wealth of MI prospects they have and given that time frame if you can package him for a core piece I don't see a reason not to. And when I say core piece, I'm talking someone on Rizzo's level of production as a hitter or roughly equivalent pitcher. And even if Baez does become a solid player I'm not sure you lose that trade if you get a Rizzo level piece. Since 1871 through present day there have been 11 players(two did it twice) to have seasons over 4 fWAR with over 27% k rate which would be a massive improvement on where Baez currently sits. Granted WAR isn't the end all be all stat but it's a very good catch all to contrast vastly different players. Those players are Chris Davis(2013 6.8 fWAR), Cecil Fielder(1990 6.5 fWAR), Jim Thome(2001 5.4 fWAR and 1999 4.2 fWAR), Jose Canseco(1990 5.2 fWAR), Mike Cameron(2002 5.1 fWAR and 2008 4 fWAR), Adam Dunn(2004 4.9 fWAR), Reggie Jackson(1968 4.7 fWAR), Jose Hernandez(2002 4.6 fWAR), B.J. Upton(2007 4.5 fWAR), Dan Uggla(2008 4.3 fWAR), and Colby Rasmus(2010 4 fWAR).

If you apply that father down to 3 WAR there's only been 26 individual seasons by players. So, even if Baez does end up over coming his issues it seems less likely that he'll ever be a star unless he vastly overcomes his strikeout issues. At 2-4 WAR he'd be by no means a bad player but hypothetically say you trade him and parts for someone like Matt Harvey who goes out and is a 4-6 fWAR pitcher per season. You almost surely end up with the best player in the deal unless the other pieces end up being quite good. So to me that's why I'd try to trade him this offseason. I think people should obviously be concerned with his debut but at the same time I think it hasn't killed his trade value yet. Obviously the right deal has to be available to make that work but I really don't see how you lose by trading him. I see almost no scenario where he gets under 27% career K rate barring a unexpected Bautista like turn. And if he never does, the chances of him being better than the player you trade him for are rather remote and you remove all of the risk in prospect development not to mention my concerns on Baez individually.

Like I said, it's probably unlikely to happen but that doesn't mean it's not logistically sound.

 

[SilenceS]

Not possible for Sale. He was promoted prior to being able to be traded

Still, same concept.

 

[SilenceS]

Well my personal argument is you use him as a trade piece before you get to that point. Whether or not that's realistic or what will happen is obviously another story. I've made the comment here that I wondered if his promotion was done in order to give them a reference point on where he was. If you compare him and Bryant, Bryant had roughly 400 PAs between AFL and AA before a promotion to AAA. He obviously destroyed in those. I believe Baez had around 300 in AAA this year and really only played well in June and July which amounts for 200ish PAs. Bryant's 22 with the book on him being a great approach. Baez is 21 and the book on him is often over aggression. AAA to MLB is considered the hardest jump for a prospect. Arguably if you're not going to promote Bryant faster then why on earth would you promote Baez as fast as they did? And don't get me wrong I'm fine with the way they've handled Bryant but the contrast between the two seems off.

My wonder is if the cubs brought him up to see if that adjustment was a short one as it was with A+ and to an extent AAA or if it was going to be a long one. Keep in mind it took around 100 PAs to adjust to A+ and AAA before he was at least semi-useful. We're currently at 215 for Baez and the 100 PAs in September were actually worse than the 100 PAs he's had in August. As I've suggested with the numbers, it sure seems like he's 2 years away minimum from being a productive major league player. I can't really see a light turning on next year and suddenly Baez is a .270/.340/.550 hitter with 35 HRs. A more likely case for positive for him would be like .230-.240 hitter with adjust the other numbers accordingly. Then maybe the following year you get to that line and that's assuming he fixes his issues.

Given the wealth of MI prospects they have and given that time frame if you can package him for a core piece I don't see a reason not to. And when I say core piece, I'm talking someone on Rizzo's level of production as a hitter or roughly equivalent pitcher. And even if Baez does become a solid player I'm not sure you lose that trade if you get a Rizzo level piece. Since 1871 through present day there have been 11 players(two did it twice) to have seasons over 4 fWAR with over 27% k rate which would be a massive improvement on where Baez currently sits. Granted WAR isn't the end all be all stat but it's a very good catch all to contrast vastly different players. Those players are Chris Davis(2013 6.8 fWAR), Cecil Fielder(1990 6.5 fWAR), Jim Thome(2001 5.4 fWAR and 1999 4.2 fWAR), Jose Canseco(1990 5.2 fWAR), Mike Cameron(2002 5.1 fWAR and 2008 4 fWAR), Adam Dunn(2004 4.9 fWAR), Reggie Jackson(1968 4.7 fWAR), Jose Hernandez(2002 4.6 fWAR), B.J. Upton(2007 4.5 fWAR), Dan Uggla(2008 4.3 fWAR), and Colby Rasmus(2010 4 fWAR).

If you apply that father down to 3 WAR there's only been 26 individual seasons by players. So, even if Baez does end up over coming his issues it seems less likely that he'll ever be a star unless he vastly overcomes his strikeout issues. At 2-4 WAR he'd be by no means a bad player but hypothetically say you trade him and parts for someone like Matt Harvey who goes out and is a 4-6 fWAR pitcher per season. You almost surely end up with the best player in the deal unless the other pieces end up being quite good. So to me that's why I'd try to trade him this offseason. I think people should obviously be concerned with his debut but at the same time I think it hasn't killed his trade value yet. Obviously the right deal has to be available to make that work but I really don't see how you lose by trading him. I see almost no scenario where he gets under 27% career K rate barring a unexpected Bautista like turn. And if he never does, the chances of him being better than the player you trade him for are rather remote and you remove all of the risk in prospect development not to mention my concerns on Baez individually.

Like I said, it's probably unlikely to happen but that doesn't mean it's not logistically sound.

It was a 158 at bats that he was awful in AAA. He hit .300 from there on out. It was around 140 in AA that he was awful then crushed. Whats funny is Bryant and Baez had the same contact rate in AAA, but because Bryant walks more you are not worried about him. lol You never liked Baez. Its cool

 

[brett05]

Still, same concept.

And given the plethora of pitching specs we've gad the past 25 years yes we'd be way ahead with proven players instead of the litany of busts

 

[beckdawg]

I don't see anyone acting as if this is just a speed bump. How people are acting is that this has been his MO at every level. Until mid next season, there isn't any reason to get too worked up about his process and output. If he's doing the same thing then, it's time to send him back down and drop him from the top prospect list. Until that time, there is no reason to be overly optimistic or overly pessimistic.

Maybe you're perception is different than mine but what I see is 0 concern about him actually making it. It's all "wait and see." There's plenty of reason to be overly pessimistic about any prospect let alone one that has struggled. Something like 30% of top 100 players turn into average or better major league players. Even if you want to exclude that to A) hitters and B) hitters who are top 10 prospects I think it's still only a 50/50 chance.

Perhaps I'm overly overly pessimistic but if anything cubs fans should take this approach after the constant flow of Corey Patterson's, Felix Pies, Josh Vitters and Brett Jacksons's of the world.

 

[brett05]

It was a 158 at bats that he was awful in AAA. He hit .300 from there on out. It was around 140 in AA that he was awful then crushed. Whats funny is Bryant and Baez had the same contact rate in AAA, but because Bryant walks more you are not worried about him. lol You never liked Baez. Its cool

So why not the same adjustment?

 

[Parade_Rain]

So why not the same adjustment?

Because that tells you how much better the pitching is at the MLB level. The home stretch was also stacked with playoff teams so he wasn't facing a bunch of late season callups to pad stats.

 

[SilenceS]

So why not the same adjustment?

He is at 199 at bats. The jump from AAA to majors is huge. It takes time. Its not like he is 700 at bats into his career.

 

[SilenceS]

Because that tells you how much better the pitching is at the MLB level. The home stretch was also stacked with playoff teams so he wasn't facing a bunch of late season callups to pad stats.

That is very true that doesnt get brought up. I think it was Theo that said the same thing. Shit, the other day Bryant said Baez is a freak. He said batting behind him for however long was a lot of fun. He said he would do unbelievable things.

The thing is Baez could very easily bust, but making any kind of judgement because of a 199 bat sample size of a 21 kid is ridiculous. Its always why I am not gushing over Soler. The league will adjust and they will have to adjust back. Its to small of sample to jump to any conclusions.

Also, I kind of want Baez to work with Castro. I think they could both learn from each other.

 

[beckdawg]

Man, are you trying to go with LD rates as a proven ground on under a 200 bat sample? You still have no concept of sample size and how much they change in the blink of an eye. Just like when you said Baez doesnt walk and within a week it jumped 2% points. The samples are to small to come to any sort of conclusion on lucky or unlucky.

And you seem to have a problem separating what's happened and projecting that to what's going to happen going forward. In those 200 PAs Baez has not made good contact. Are you honestly going to sit here and try to argue other wise? I never suggested that this sample size will ultimately be where he stabilizes to just like I never said he'd be a 2% or whatever it was walk rate guy. This data shows it takes around 800 PAs for LD% and 200 for IFFB to stabilize. I knew that well before making these comments. 25% isn't the full picture and I never said it was. My point was it isn't a positive indication going forward. Incidentally, his infield fly balls would have stabilized according to that data. The entire point of that comparison was Trout hit poorly despite average or better contact rates which people should have viewed as a positive for him the following season. Baez on the other hand has hit this poorly because he has made poor contact. I have never suggested he can't improve, not once.

Also please spare me the "you don't like him" talk. I don't like him because he's played poorly not because I hold some personal grudge toward him. If and when he turns thing around my opinion will turnaround on him and any other player. Frankly, I think I'm done responding to you on matters involving him because it seems pretty clear to me that you have an emotional attachment to him and can't separate that from talk on data. I've seen you make comments about Olt basically being done as a cub(rightly so) after 200ish PAs in the majors with roughly equivalent numbers to what Baez has put up. I'm not even suggesting they are identical situations but if you can't see the inherent bias between the two stances here then what's the point of even continuing further?