Orlando Hudson

[naivin]

I took the liberty of looking it up:

 

Weeks 2008 Chone: .262/.380/.447/.827

Weeks actual: .234/.342/.398/.740

 

Hudson 2008 Chone: .281/.361/.431/.792

Hudon Actual: .305/.367/.450/.817

 

Hmmmm....

 

Weeks 2007 Chone: .274/.375/.453

Weeks 2007 Actual: .235/.374/.433

 

Hmmmm again....1 out of 6 ain't bad.

 

If you still like those projections, defensively, Hudson: +3, Weeks: -9 (Cano: 0)

[naivin]

you can't just ignore the numbers because he wears pinstripes and plays next to jeter...

This is a good point. You also can't ignore the numbers because a player was a high draft pick of the Milwaukee Brewers and rated/projected out high at that time. I continue to hold out hope that he'll figure it out, but as it stands today, Rickie Weeks is basically a bad baseball player.

[logan82]

naivin wrote:

Rickie Weeks is basically a bad baseball player.

No, he is average as has been show again and again.

[naivin]

No, he is average as has been show again and again.

Shown by whom? Certainly not Rickie Weeks. Even if you accept him as average offensively (I don't), defensively he is certainly below average.

 

Average + Below average = Below average.

[endaround]

I took the liberty of looking it up:

 

Weeks 2008 Chone: .262/.380/.447/.827

Weeks actual: .234/.342/.398/.740

 

Hudson 2008 Chone: .281/.361/.431/.792

Hudon Actual: .305/.367/.450/.817

 

Hmmmm....

 

Weeks 2007 Chone: .274/.375/.453

Weeks 2007 Actual: .235/.374/.433

 

Hmmmm again....1 out of 6 ain't bad.

 

If you still like those projections, defensively, Hudson: +3, Weeks: -9 (Cano: 0)

 

So CHONE was off on Weeks' 2008(mostly due to the Brewers sitting Weeks) and pretty much nailed Weeks in 2007 and Chone in 2008(20 points of AVG due to a career high BABIP isn't a big deal). Weeks value was $9.6 m despite being sat. Hudson was at $9.5m because his defense stunk.

[naivin]

So CHONE was off on Weeks' 2008(mostly due to the Brewers sitting Weeks) and pretty much nailed Weeks in 2007

If you say so.

 

If you want to use those values, I guess we should make it simple and just bring back Ray Durham since he was significantly higher than both. But wait, his projections aren't as good. Man I'm getting confused...Its hard to keep straight the arguments for which these statistics and projections are relevant and those they aren't.

[Ennder]

Durham is worse defensively than Weeks and can't play full time. Weeks is pretty close to an average major league 2B overall. He has been above average offensively in his career and below average defensively.

 

NL 2B put up a .338 OBP and .408 SLG last year. Weeks career line is now a .352 OBP and .406 SLG. He sits above average in OBP and right around average in SLG. Most importantly though is the fact that he is cheap, if we were spending a lot on him it would be different but at his salary if he is 1 game above replacement he is worth it.

[Fatter than Joey]

Most importantly though is the fact that he is cheap, if we were spending a lot on him it would be different but at his salary if he is 1 game above replacement he is worth it.

 

I think Weeks sucks (relative to starting players), but this is the bottom line, and where I quit arguing. He is cheap. It will be interesting to see how much Arby's he is offered/receives.

[zzzmanwitz]

Its really amazing how many times league average 2nd baseman stats are posted on this site and some people still don't believe that Weeks is average. It completely boggles my mind.

[PeaveyFury]

NL 2B put up a .338 OBP and .408 SLG last year. Weeks career line is now a .352 OBP and .406 SLG.

 

The problem, though, is that Week's slugging dipped significantly last season, and is already much lower overall than expected from his minor league numbers. If that's a fluke, it's one thing. If it's the start of a trend, it's a serious problem.

[zzzmanwitz]

If that's a fluke, it's one thing. If it's the start of a trend, it's a serious problem.

 

If it were any other player, people would call it a fluke. But since its weeks, and there seems to be a major bias against him among brewer fans, its viewed as the start of a trend.

[Ennder]

well dropping from his career .406 SLG to a .398 SLG is hardly a trend, that is within expected values. His ISO is probably a better indicator for power since SLG includes singles, his career ISO is .162 and his 2008 ISO was .164 which again is right around career numbers albeit lower than in 2007.

 

Last year his BB% was higher than his career level, K% was lower than career level and ISO was higher than career level and for my money at least his fielding improved. He showed slight improvement in most areas of his game over his career rates, just not compared to the offense of 2007. His BABIP was low last year which is probably what drove the down year the most. In April he was drilling the ball all over the place but right at players (I remember that anecdotally), in May he was grounding out weakly and popping up constantly. Then in June he finally started to put up more normal numbers.

[PeaveyFury]

well dropping from his career .406 SLG to a .398 SLG is hardly a trend, that is within expected values. His ISO is probably a better indicator for power since SLG includes singles, his career ISO is .162 and his 2008 ISO was .164 which again is right around career numbers albeit lower than in 2007.

 

But that's the issue- his slugging numbers were increasing in increments as you'd expect for a developing player until last year. As I said, it could well be a fluke if he goes out and slugs .430, but if he posts another sub-.400 slugging percentage, that's a huge problem.

[logan82]

If you took Weeks batting line from last year and swapped out 7 walks for singles, he would go up 15 points of SLG. I know the numbers are the numbers, but a few more hits and Weeks line looks pretty good.

[naivin]

Looking over this thread, 'ifs' and 'buts' seem to be Rickie Weeks' strongest attributes as a player. Definitely a strong candidate for the MHP award...Most Hypothetical Player. I say that as someone who would like nothong more than to see him succeed, but is finiding it increasingly difficult to see that happening.

[TooLiveBrew]

Or the reality is that he's fine at 2B for offense, and below average for defense, and cheaper than any other proposed solution. It seems you won't let the facts stand in your way, though.

 

And no, Escobar at 2B in 2009 isn't a viable solution imo.

[TheCrew07]

And no, Escobar at 2B in 2009 isn't a viable solution imo.

I might have to jump on that bandwagon just to be contrarian and give us something else to talk about. Then again I'd have to read 30 posts throwing Escobar under the bus because his BABIP was too high last year so he'll have a bad season at the plate in AAA because players in MiLB regress to the mean like players in MLB... or something. Maybe that's not such a good idea after all, that particular discussion is pretty stale.

[TooLiveBrew]

that particular discussion is pretty stale.

 

True -- though not sure why you're so averse to the notion that Esco had some great luck at the plate last season... that's basically just fact. My point was more that his defense would be wasted a bit if not at SS. I view Escobar as Hardy's eventual (2010?) replacement at SS.

[TheCrew07]

though not sure why you're so averse to the notion that Esco had some great luck at the plate last season... that's basically just fact.

I wasn't picking on you at all, but I'll address that point. Why is it luck instead of talent? Gamel and Salome were just lucky then as well? These are kids that are trending upwards and while their relative AVE may decrease next year that will not mean they struggle, they are immensely talented. There is no way that a player who cares as a high a BABIP as those 3 players did managed to do it all year with luck. All of them hit the hell out of the ball for an extended period of time this season (months not days or even weeks). No one is saying that any of those kids will hit over .300 in MLB but somehow people will acknowledge that Gamel and Salome are talented while Escobar get's pigeon holed like he's talentless at the plate, as if he's fully developed, when in fact he never worked on his offensive game at all until the Brewers signed him. There was a wonderful article this season that explained how he skipped school(not that I'm advocating skipping school) to take groundballs from this coach everyday, that's all he really wanted to do. His MiLB offensive trend is upwards, the kid is improving as he should be, he's as talented as the other 2 players and is starting to grow into his body some, he's not a finished product and it irks me that his trend and natural talent get ignored in these discussions.

 

I'm not sure how it's reasonable to apply MLB sabermetrics to MiLB players who aren't fully developed? A more case by case study is needed which should include factoring in the athlete's natural talent... MLES have absolutely nothing to do with a player's natural ability. Many people commenting on Escobar have never seen him make a play in the field, much less a single AB. I'm hoping that Cain busts out next season as he's another toolsy player the MLB club could really use but hasn't even come close to his potential yet and I wonder if we'll be having the same discussions about him filling the Cameron void next season? Somehow these discussions always get spun into the prospect's offensive production vs the MLB player's offensive production when it's not that black and white. Cost, trade value, contract length, age, etc.. should all get factored into the equation. I've stated it so many times but it bears repeating again, it's not Hardy vs Escobar, it's really Hardy vs Escobar + Pitcher... Melvin has to find a way to make all of the pieces fit, he doesn't have the luxury of thinking exclusively about 2009, it's in his best interests (job security) to build the best team possible, which doesn't necessarily mean build the best team for 2009. Unless we seriously upgrade the rotation this team isn't going anywhere in the playoffs even if they get there, and 1 and done really doesn't do anything for me. I don't see how signing back of the rotation starters gets us where I want to go, I'm into a WS appearance, not a WC appearance.

[TooLiveBrew]

I wasn't picking on you at all, but I'll address that point.

 

I know... I just get confused when people react adversely to that fact being highlighted.

 

 

Why is it luck instead of talent?

 

It's not about a separation of the two. It was both luck & talent, but you can't look at a season where a guy had a BABIP nearing in on .400 (.380) & treat it as a reliable indicator of his talent level... or reasonably say, 'Well, that wasn't luck..'

 

I'd just like to be clear & say that stating, 'Escobar had a lot of good luck in his 2008 stats' is not stating, 'He's overrated', or 'He just got lucky', etc. This is why I made the comment I did. I just don't understand why people think that being objective about a highly-fluctuating stat like BABIP (which in addition hasn't been shown to have much if any skill involved in its fluctuations) is crazy or biased somehow.

 

 

No one is saying that any of those kids will hit over .300 in MLB but somehow people will acknowledge that Gamel and Salome are talented while Escobar gets pigeon holed like he's talentless at the plate, as if he's fully developed, when in fact he never worked on his offensive game at all until the Brewers signed him.

 

And I can remember literally no one making the claims that I put in bold above. Looking at his 2008 production & seeing trademark red flags of which to be cautious, is not equal to saying 'Escobar is talentless' or 'Escobar is fully developed at the plate'. I do think it should be pointed out that in 2008 he mustered a line of .314/.341/.419/.760 v. RHP (401 AB) with a .355 BABIP -- a .341 OBP with a .355 BABIP. I think of the discussions people have had in the ML forum on Aaron Miles's 2008 when I see that line. Yes, Alcides is young & not fully developed. But there's enough concern imo that thinking he should be MLB-ready next season isn't accurate.

 

Honestly, what do you find disagreeable about people pointing out that Escobar had a .380 BABIP (an entirely un-sustainable rate), & just 31 BB over 548 AB last season? Those are two red flags in player evaluation/valuation. Whether I like Escobar or not (which I do... a lot), I have no problem accepting that his extreme 2008 BABIP made him look better than his talents (at this point). I don't think we have a good idea of what kind of production to expect from in 2009, and especially if that season is to be spent in Milwaukee against far tougher pitching.

 

 

His MiLB offensive trend is upwards, the kid is improving as he should be, he's as talented as the other 2 players and is starting to grow into his body some, he's not a finished product and it irks me that his trend and natural talent get ignored in these discussions.

 

Where does it get ignored? I just haven't seen the same overt negativity towards Escobar, I guess. The only thing that concerns me about Escobar is his low BB rate, since he doesn't have (nor does he project to gain) much raw power. I'm downright anxious to see what kind of impact his defense alone will have once he is ready for big-league pitching... and what kind of offense he will indeed contribute. He appears to only really lack that raw power in terms of being the perfect prospect.

[TheCrew07]

Again you're taking a sabermetric slant, which there is nothing wrong with, looking at Ks and BBs and worrying about a player sustaining an over inflated BABIP...

 

I see the same player, but I see a kid who's making incremental steps in his offensive game as he starts to scratch his vast potential. Is he a 5 tool prospect? I don't think he'll ever hit for enough power to be considered a 5 tool prospect, but he's a heck of a 4 tool prospect. I compared him to Cain because I see both players sort of the same way. Not that resemble each other physically, but they both were so raw when they were acquired (in Cain's case defensively as well) and yet they get judged in the same way as a kid like Lawrie. Cain is a true 5 tool prospect and yet people have compared him to TGJ on the Minor League Forum in the past... while everyone is welcome to their own opinion, sometimes people don't do their due diligence.

 

It's one thing to look at their raw stats, and it's another to put those stats into context and account for their natural talent. I just don't think there's a one size fits all way to judge prospects, I like some because they are toolsy, some because they get results, some because they are a combination of the 2.

[TooLiveBrew]

I see the same player, but I see a kid who's making incremental steps in his offensive game as he starts to scratch his vast potential. Is he a 5 tool prospect? I don't think he'll ever hit for enough power to be considered a 5 tool prospect, but he's a heck of a 4 tool prospect.

 

I think we agree on Escobar in general then.

 

 

It's one thing to look at their raw stats, and it's another to put those stats into context and account for their natural talent. I just don't think there's a one size fits all way to judge prospects, I like some because they are toolsy, some because they get results, some because they are a combination of the 2.

 

Very much agreed. Alcides seems to fit the latter mold -- his athletic ability is often cited, yet clearly he's been producing tangible results, too.

[logan82]

I don't think anybody has ever said that Escobar won't hit or can't hit, although the statistics make 2008 look like an outlier right now. The general feeling seems to be that until he repeats or comes close to repeating his 2008 stats, there doesn't seem to be any reason to gamble on him starting in the majors when we already have a very good SS.

[JohnBriggs12]

I don't think anybody has ever said that Escobar won't hit or can't hit, although the statistics make 2008 look like an outlier right now. The general feeling seems to be that until he repeats or comes close to repeating his 2008 stats, there doesn't seem to be any reason to gamble on him starting in the majors when we already have a very good SS.

 

I don't think 2008 looks like an outlier at all. Escobar hit .281 in advanced rookie ball at age 17. At 18, playing against mostly 22 year olds, he hit .271 for West Virginia. The outlier year was 2006 when at 19 he struggled a bit in the Florida State league, a notorious pitchers league. He came back and hit .307 between High A and AA at age 20 the next year.

 

He doesn't take a lot of walks, but he does put the bat on the ball. I think some have Enrique Cruz in the back of their heads, but this kid is not Enrique Cruz. Cruz was a 100+ strikeout guy in the low minors who was overwhelmed in the majors. Escobar's power is improving because his body is filling out somewhat. He probably never will be a guy who's OBP will exceed his BA by more than 50 points, but because he makes contact and can run, he should hit for a decent average in the major leagues with more power than he showed as a teenager playing against older competition.

 

Will he have an adjustment period? No doubt. The question is how long will it last. I think if the Brewers drop out of contention in 09, it will be a good time for Escobar to get time for that adjustment.

[Ennder]

My big problem with Escobar is that he doesn't take walks and doesn't get the ball in the air much. Last year he had a .450 BABIP and .932 OPS against lefties while hitting the ball on the ground 66% of the time. Those are not stats that he will maintain at a major league level. His numbers against righties might be sustainable, .314/.341/.419/.760 with a .355 BABIP. As the BABIP drops a little you probably get left with a .290 hitter who doesn't walk and has weak power, that is what I think Escobar is right now.

 

Another year of growth in AAA could of course change that opinion, I mean Hanley Ramirez never showed his power in the minors either. I just think people are fooling themselves if they think Escobar should be starting in the majors this year, this is a skillset that could use another year to develop.