SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
Garin Cecchini traded to Brewers for cash
|
Post by jmei on Dec 11, 2015 13:27:38 GMT -5
If you looked at strikeout rate, why are you reporting raw strikeout numbers? Strikeout rate by level: A+ = 13.0% (262 PA) AA = 17.6% (295 PA) AAA (2014) = 21.6% (458 PA) AAA (2015) = 21.3% (469 PA) You might think that represents a "slight increase" across levels, but the difference between a hitter who strikes 13% vs. 21% of the time is quite significant. Your numbers are way wrong AB's in 2014 is 438, in 2015 it's 426.
In 2013 I don't include fall league AB's
2012 19.8% 2013 18.9% 2014 22.6% 2015 23.6%
Hence a slight increase. 19.8% to 23.6%
You calculate strikeout rate with plate appearances (PAs) as the denominator, not at bats (ABs). As such, ramireja had it correct and you have it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 13:33:26 GMT -5
This is also known as hitting for less power which is what I originally said and what you disagreed with. Shall we continue? You said his drop in power in AA in 2013 gave you read flags and predicted what he has become. That's not true. His decrease in power doesn't explain his decrease in average fully. There is a lot more going on. I also said his power really hasn't decreased that much, just that 2013 was a fluke. He has never really had power, besides 200 fluke AB's in high A. So this big crash you see is not really that big. What are his ISO numbers for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015?
SLG 2012 .433, 2013 high A .547 AA .404, 2014 AAA .371. But in 2014 with a .371 SLG% he still hit .263 with an OBP of .341 (good enough numbers) and in 31 AB's in majors he hit .258 .361 OBP with a .452 SLG%. Then last year he hit .213 .286 OBP and .296 slg.
In 2015 he stopped hitting singles and his drop in power in 2013 from high A to double A never predicted that would happen, that was your claim that started this convo in the first place.
I'm not going to bother replying to slugging percentage points because they are meaningless. ISO measures power. Slugging measures batting average and power together. I imagine his average went down when his power went down because he tried to sell out for more power. There were a few scouts who said that IIRC. He would never have been a top 100 prospect if he didn't hit for power in A+. His power was in question, but he was answering it at that point and rose in prospect status. No one expected it to go down as much as it did as he got older and stronger. ISO by level: 2013 A+ - .196 in 262 PA 2013 AA - .108 in 295 PA 2014 AAA - .108 in 458 PA 2015 AAA - .083 in 469 PA If you don't see that going down, I'm not sure what to tell you.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 13:57:35 GMT -5
Your numbers are way wrong AB's in 2014 is 438, in 2015 it's 426.
In 2013 I don't include fall league AB's
2012 19.8% 2013 18.9% 2014 22.6% 2015 23.6%
Hence a slight increase. 19.8% to 23.6%
You calculate strikeout rate with plate appearances (PAs) as the denominator, not at bats (ABs). As such, ramireja had it correct and you have it wrong. My bad, I'm sorry I had it wrong. Have to add in Walks with AB's.
2012 17.4%, 2013 15.7%, 2014 20.5% and 2015 21.6% (Minor league stats only) 17.4% to 21.6% When going from middle A to AAA is a slight increase in my book. It's not 13% to 21% which I agree is more then a slight increase.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 14:10:34 GMT -5
You said his drop in power in AA in 2013 gave you read flags and predicted what he has become. That's not true. His decrease in power doesn't explain his decrease in average fully. There is a lot more going on. I also said his power really hasn't decreased that much, just that 2013 was a fluke. He has never really had power, besides 200 fluke AB's in high A. So this big crash you see is not really that big. What are his ISO numbers for 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015?
SLG 2012 .433, 2013 high A .547 AA .404, 2014 AAA .371. But in 2014 with a .371 SLG% he still hit .263 with an OBP of .341 (good enough numbers) and in 31 AB's in majors he hit .258 .361 OBP with a .452 SLG%. Then last year he hit .213 .286 OBP and .296 slg.
In 2015 he stopped hitting singles and his drop in power in 2013 from high A to double A never predicted that would happen, that was your claim that started this convo in the first place.
I'm not going to bother replying to slugging percentage points because they are meaningless. ISO measures power. Slugging measures batting average and power together. I imagine his average went down when his power went down because he tried to sell out for more power. There were a few scouts who said that IIRC. He would never have been a top 100 prospect if he didn't hit for power in A+. His power was in question, but he was answering it at that point and rose in prospect status. No one expected it to go down as much as it did as he got older and stronger. ISO by level: 2013 A+ - .196 in 262 PA 2013 AA - .108 in 295 PA 2014 AAA - .108 in 458 PA 2015 AAA - .083 in 469 PA If you don't see that going down, I'm not sure what to tell you. You are leaving out 2012 which I am sure would prove my point. 2013 is an outlier year. His time in Salem is an outlier that skews the numbers for that year. You keep saying his drop in power lead you to believe he was going to flame out. I keep saying he really didn't have a huge drop in power, just around 200 crazy good AB's in Salem. I mean his numbers in AA and AAA in 2013 and 2014 are exactly the same. I would assume his ISO in 2012 would be about .120 or something like that.
You prove my point that a drop in ISO doesn't explain a drop in average and on field results. 2013 AA average is .296 with .420 obp, 2014 AAA with same exact ISO he hits .263 with obp of .341. Hence it wasn't a drop in power that lead to his decrease in on field performance.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Dec 11, 2015 14:26:04 GMT -5
You calculate strikeout rate with plate appearances (PAs) as the denominator, not at bats (ABs). As such, ramireja had it correct and you have it wrong. My bad, I'm sorry I had it wrong. Have to add in Walks with AB's.
2012 17.4%, 2013 15.7%, 2014 20.5% and 2015 21.6% (Minor league stats only) 17.4% to 21.6% When going from middle A to AAA is a slight increase in my book. It's not 13% to 21% which I agree is more then a slight increase.
Its 13% to 21% if you look at strikeout rate by level, and not by year as you're doing. No need to do the math again...the numbers I used are correct and readily available on fangraphs. If the argument is that pitchers approached him differently at each level, then please use the numbers I provided.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Dec 11, 2015 15:02:43 GMT -5
Cecchini was one of the most pleasant, sincere, friendly players I've talked to in the system. I hope he figures out whatever his issues were in Milwaukee.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:03:08 GMT -5
I'm not going to bother replying to slugging percentage points because they are meaningless. ISO measures power. Slugging measures batting average and power together. I imagine his average went down when his power went down because he tried to sell out for more power. There were a few scouts who said that IIRC. He would never have been a top 100 prospect if he didn't hit for power in A+. His power was in question, but he was answering it at that point and rose in prospect status. No one expected it to go down as much as it did as he got older and stronger. ISO by level: 2013 A+ - .196 in 262 PA 2013 AA - .108 in 295 PA 2014 AAA - .108 in 458 PA 2015 AAA - .083 in 469 PA If you don't see that going down, I'm not sure what to tell you. You are leaving out 2012 which I am sure would prove my point. 2013 is an outlier year. His time in Salem is an outlier that skews the numbers for that year. You keep saying his drop in power lead you to believe he was going to flame out. I keep saying he really didn't have a huge drop in power, just around 200 crazy good AB's in Salem. I mean his numbers in AA and AAA in 2013 and 2014 are exactly the same. I would assume his ISO in 2012 would be about .120 or something like that.
You prove my point that a drop in ISO doesn't explain a drop in average and on field results. 2013 AA average is .296 with .420 obp, 2014 AAA with same exact ISO he hits .263 with obp of .341. Hence it wasn't a drop in power that lead to his decrease in on field performance.
If it was assumed that he'd have the same lack of power he has now, he never would have been a top 100 prospect. It was hoped that he'd grow some into some. It looked like he was starting to grow into some in Salem, but it was a mirage. Players in their early 20s start to develop power. 262 PA is a large enough sample size to be quite hopeful that he'd eventually have acceptable major league power. That's why he was top 100. I separate by level, not by years. You're really confusing with that. I'm confused at why if you thought he never had power and never was going to have any power that you were such a big fan of him. I have a hard time believing that you were going around telling everyone to not get excited about the very acceptable power he was showing in Salem. Everyone here was.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 15:06:25 GMT -5
My bad, I'm sorry I had it wrong. Have to add in Walks with AB's.
2012 17.4%, 2013 15.7%, 2014 20.5% and 2015 21.6% (Minor league stats only) 17.4% to 21.6% When going from middle A to AAA is a slight increase in my book. It's not 13% to 21% which I agree is more then a slight increase.
Its 13% to 21% if you look at strikeout rate by level, and not by year as you're doing. No need to do the math again...the numbers I used are correct and readily available on fangraphs. If the argument is that pitchers approached him differently at each level, then please use the numbers I provided. Your stats are right but you are cherry picking which ones to use. Why would you start at 2013 Salem stats were he has the lowest strikeout % of his career and a bunch of other career best stats in just 214 AB's and overlook the Greenville stats from 2012 were his strikeout rate was 17.1%? He did that in 455 AB's.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:11:02 GMT -5
Its 13% to 21% if you look at strikeout rate by level, and not by year as you're doing. No need to do the math again...the numbers I used are correct and readily available on fangraphs. If the argument is that pitchers approached him differently at each level, then please use the numbers I provided. Your stats are right but you are cherry picking which ones to use. Why would you start at 2013 Salem stats were he has the lowest strikeout % of his career and a bunch of other career best stats in just 214 AB's and overlook the Greenville stats from 2012 were his strikeout rate was 17.1%? He did that in 455 AB's. You separate stats by level because each level is harder. You do this for every prospect, not just Cecchini. What good is looking at an average for the year? You don't include AAA stats when looking at a major league player's season either.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 15:16:13 GMT -5
You are leaving out 2012 which I am sure would prove my point. 2013 is an outlier year. His time in Salem is an outlier that skews the numbers for that year. You keep saying his drop in power lead you to believe he was going to flame out. I keep saying he really didn't have a huge drop in power, just around 200 crazy good AB's in Salem. I mean his numbers in AA and AAA in 2013 and 2014 are exactly the same. I would assume his ISO in 2012 would be about .120 or something like that.
You prove my point that a drop in ISO doesn't explain a drop in average and on field results. 2013 AA average is .296 with .420 obp, 2014 AAA with same exact ISO he hits .263 with obp of .341. Hence it wasn't a drop in power that lead to his decrease in on field performance.
If it was assumed that he'd have the same lack of power he has now, he never would have been a top 100 prospect. It was hoped that he'd grow some into some. It looked like he was starting to grow into some in Salem, but it was a mirage. Players in their early 20s start to develop power. 262 PA is a large enough sample size to be quite hopeful that he'd eventually have acceptable major league power. That's why he was top 100. I separate by level, not by years. You're really confusing with that. I'm confused at why if you thought he never had power and never was going to have any power that you were such a big fan of him. I have a hard time believing that you were going around telling everyone to not get excited about the very acceptable power he was showing in Salem. Everyone here was. Why I liked him a ton was what I thought of him as an elite hitter with very little power, but elite on base skills, that down the road might develop a little power. From what I read he could have developed into an average 3B and average OF. I was fine with a .275 average or better, .360 on base % or better and like a .370 slugging from an average 3B or OF. Even after 2014 I still thought there was a slight chance he could hit .300 with an on base % around .400 in his peak years.
It's the old Oakland money ball type of player.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 15:27:49 GMT -5
Your stats are right but you are cherry picking which ones to use. Why would you start at 2013 Salem stats were he has the lowest strikeout % of his career and a bunch of other career best stats in just 214 AB's and overlook the Greenville stats from 2012 were his strikeout rate was 17.1%? He did that in 455 AB's. You separate stats by level because each level is harder. You do this for every prospect, not just Cecchini. What good is looking at an average for the year? You don't include AAA stats when looking at a major league player's season either. Well in 2012 he only played in one level, so the 17.1% strikeout rate should count with the way you look at stats no?
I get that from level to level gives you good info, but it can also skew results. I like year to year as it averages things out and shows you how the player played for a full year and not just 2 months. I get it's not a perfect way of doing it, really nothing is unless you want to compare numbers to league average to take account for difference in each level. Looks at age against league average age etc. We all know that some leagues are hitter leagues, some are pitching strong leagues and it changes from year to year.
I don't include major stats because he had a very limited number of AB's. It's not a real sample size.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:31:41 GMT -5
If it was assumed that he'd have the same lack of power he has now, he never would have been a top 100 prospect. It was hoped that he'd grow some into some. It looked like he was starting to grow into some in Salem, but it was a mirage. Players in their early 20s start to develop power. 262 PA is a large enough sample size to be quite hopeful that he'd eventually have acceptable major league power. That's why he was top 100. I separate by level, not by years. You're really confusing with that. I'm confused at why if you thought he never had power and never was going to have any power that you were such a big fan of him. I have a hard time believing that you were going around telling everyone to not get excited about the very acceptable power he was showing in Salem. Everyone here was. Why I liked him a ton was what I thought of him as an elite hitter with very little power, but elite on base skills, that down the road might develop a little power. From what I read he could have developed into an average 3B and average OF. I was fine with a .275 average or better, .360 on base % or better and like a .370 slugging from an average 3B or OF. Even after 2014 I still thought there was a slight chance he could hit .300 with an on base % around .400 in his peak years.
It's the old Oakland money ball type of player.
I think that's where everyone went wrong. Those players do not exist. I did some extensive searching on fangraphs for anyone with numbers similar to Cecchini's in Portland and found no decent hitters in the history of baseball. He had to either get his ISO up to .150 or strikeout around 10%. You cannot walk enough without power and/or enough contact skills to foul off a lot of balls. Pitchers will just throw strikes to batters they aren't afraid of. And it's also about impossible to hit .275 while striking out over 20% of the time if you're not getting a bunch of infield hits with speed. You could do it with BABIP luck or if you hit the ball as hard as Miguel Cabrera. When you think of elite hitters with elite on base skills and no power, you think of guys like Boggs and Ichiro. But those are guys with sub 10% k-rates.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 15:38:02 GMT -5
Cecchini was one of the most pleasant, sincere, friendly players I've talked to in the system. I hope he figures out whatever his issues were in Milwaukee. I really hope he becomes the next Brandon Moss. As a player Sox didn't think was good enough for our team but goes on to have a very nice career. Coyle and Brentz better help us in some way or form down the road.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 15:50:56 GMT -5
Why I liked him a ton was what I thought of him as an elite hitter with very little power, but elite on base skills, that down the road might develop a little power. From what I read he could have developed into an average 3B and average OF. I was fine with a .275 average or better, .360 on base % or better and like a .370 slugging from an average 3B or OF. Even after 2014 I still thought there was a slight chance he could hit .300 with an on base % around .400 in his peak years.
It's the old Oakland money ball type of player.
I think that's where everyone went wrong. Those players do not exist. I did some extensive searching on fangraphs for anyone with numbers similar to Cecchini's in Portland and found no decent hitters in the history of baseball. He had to either get his ISO up to .150 or strikeout around 10%. You cannot walk enough without power and/or enough contact skills to foul off a lot of balls. Pitchers will just throw strikes to batters they aren't afraid of. And it's also about impossible to hit .275 while striking out over 20% of the time if you're not getting a bunch of infield hits with speed. You could do it with BABIP luck or if you hit the ball as hard as Miguel Cabrera. When you think of elite hitters with elite on base skills and no power, you think of guys like Boggs and Ichiro. But those are guys with sub 10% k-rates. Well I think you are aiming to high by looking at Boggs and Ichiro who are hall of fame players. You can't tell me there aren't a bunch of players with around .275 average .360 on base % and a low slg% seasons.
You say it can't be done but in 2013 in AA he did it, .108 ISO and he hit .296 with a .420 on base % . 2014 in AAA with a .108 ISO he hit .263 with a .341 on base %. So your theory doesn't seem to hold water. With a poor ISO he was able to get hits and walks. You keep forgetting he is known as having very good contact skills and bat speed.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:53:17 GMT -5
I think that's where everyone went wrong. Those players do not exist. I did some extensive searching on fangraphs for anyone with numbers similar to Cecchini's in Portland and found no decent hitters in the history of baseball. He had to either get his ISO up to .150 or strikeout around 10%. You cannot walk enough without power and/or enough contact skills to foul off a lot of balls. Pitchers will just throw strikes to batters they aren't afraid of. And it's also about impossible to hit .275 while striking out over 20% of the time if you're not getting a bunch of infield hits with speed. You could do it with BABIP luck or if you hit the ball as hard as Miguel Cabrera. When you think of elite hitters with elite on base skills and no power, you think of guys like Boggs and Ichiro. But those are guys with sub 10% k-rates. Well I think you are aiming to high by looking at Boggs and Ichiro who are hall of fame players. You can't tell me there aren't a bunch of players with around .275 average .360 on base % and a low slg% seasons.
You say it can't be done but in 2013 in AA he did it, .108 ISO and he hit .296 with a .420 on base % . 2014 in AAA with a .108 ISO he hit .263 with a .341 on base %. So your theory doesn't seem to hold water. With a poor ISO he was able to get hits and walks. You keep forgetting he is known as having very good contact skills and bat speed.
I invite you to try to find players like that. I say it can't be done in the majors, when the pitchers have much better control and the defense is much better. How can a player with an over 20% k-rate have very good contact skills?
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 15:59:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 16:08:03 GMT -5
Well I think you are aiming to high by looking at Boggs and Ichiro who are hall of fame players. You can't tell me there aren't a bunch of players with around .275 average .360 on base % and a low slg% seasons.
You say it can't be done but in 2013 in AA he did it, .108 ISO and he hit .296 with a .420 on base % . 2014 in AAA with a .108 ISO he hit .263 with a .341 on base %. So your theory doesn't seem to hold water. With a poor ISO he was able to get hits and walks. You keep forgetting he is known as having very good contact skills and bat speed.
I invite you to try to find players like that. I say it can't be done in the majors, when the pitchers have much better control and the defense is much better. How can a player with an over 20% k-rate have very good contact skills? Quick look at stats shows a bunch of players. Here's one you might know; Brock Holt is exactly the type of player you think doesn't exist. 2014 19.9% strikeouts, .100 ISO .281 average .349 on base %, 2015 19.1% strikeouts, .099 ISO, .272 average, .330 on base %.
A player with good contact skills that strikeouts a lot can take too many pitches. Instead of swinging and making contact he takes a ton of called 3rd strikes. What leads to the high on base % also means he strikes out a lot.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 16:13:22 GMT -5
Holts wRC+ is 98 for both 2014 and 2015
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 16:13:59 GMT -5
I invite you to try to find players like that. I say it can't be done in the majors, when the pitchers have much better control and the defense is much better. How can a player with an over 20% k-rate have very good contact skills? Quick look at stats shows a bunch of players. Here's one you might know; Brock Holt is exactly the type of player you think doesn't exist. 2014 19.9% strikeouts, .100 ISO .281 average .349 on base %, 2015 19.1% strikeouts, .099 ISO, .272 average, .330 on base %.
A player with good contact skills that strikeouts a lot can take too many pitches. Instead of swinging and making contact he takes a ton of called 3rd strikes. What leads to the high on base % also means he strikes out a lot.
Holt is a below average hitter. He's in the majors because he's adequate to very good at 7 different positions. Cecchini isn't going to be in the majors for long with a 98 wRC+ like Holt had those two years. Cecchini needs to hit a lot more than that. It really doesn't matter how Cecchini strikes out. I'd put not taking 3rd strikes as a preferable subskill to his hit tool.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 16:15:54 GMT -5
Holts wRC+ is 98 for both 2014 and 2015 This is about where we're at now. Cecchini won't be in the majors if he hit like Holt. And he's not doing it at AAA either.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 16:25:24 GMT -5
Quick look at stats shows a bunch of players. Here's one you might know; Brock Holt is exactly the type of player you think doesn't exist. 2014 19.9% strikeouts, .100 ISO .281 average .349 on base %, 2015 19.1% strikeouts, .099 ISO, .272 average, .330 on base %.
A player with good contact skills that strikeouts a lot can take too many pitches. Instead of swinging and making contact he takes a ton of called 3rd strikes. What leads to the high on base % also means he strikes out a lot.
Holt is a below average hitter. He's in the majors because he's adequate to very good at 7 different positions. Cecchini isn't going to be in the majors for long with a 98 wRC+ like Holt had those two years. Cecchini needs to hit a lot more than that. It really doesn't matter how Cecchini strikes out. I'd put not taking 3rd strikes as a preferable subskill to his hit tool. Come on you said it couldn't be done in the majors. It has been done and I think Cecchini has better on base skills then Holt. With wRC+ 100 being average, I would say that a 98 is just about a league average player, when 80 is considered a below average player.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 16:26:42 GMT -5
Holts wRC+ is 98 for both 2014 and 2015 This is about where we're at now. Cecchini won't be in the majors if he hit like Holt. And he's not doing it at AAA either. So if Cecchini was a league average hitter and played an average 3B or OF he wouldn't be in the majors?
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 16:28:33 GMT -5
Do you know how many teams would like a league average hitter like Holt to play 3b, 2nd B or the OF for them? A lot.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Dec 11, 2015 16:31:59 GMT -5
This is about where we're at now. Cecchini won't be in the majors if he hit like Holt. And he's not doing it at AAA either. So if Cecchini was a league average hitter and played an average 3B or OF he wouldn't be in the majors? He doesn't play an average 3B. And if he played an average LF, that's still not a starter. Plus Holt has speed that Cecchini doesn't have, which probably adds to his batting average. And besides all of that, Brock Holt struck out far less in the minors than Cecchini is. Cecchini has so far to go to even reach Brock Holt's level as a hitter. He had a 69 wRC+ in AAA last year. The last season he had a k-rate under 20% was 2013.
|
|
|
Post by umassgrad2005 on Dec 11, 2015 16:43:49 GMT -5
So if Cecchini was a league average hitter and played an average 3B or OF he wouldn't be in the majors? He doesn't play an average 3B. And if he played an average LF, that's still not a starter. Plus Holt has speed that Cecchini doesn't have, which probably adds to his batting average. And besides all of that, Brock Holt struck out far less in the minors than Cecchini is. Cecchini has so far to go to even reach Brock Holt's level as a hitter. He had a 69 wRC+ in AAA last year. The last season he had a k-rate under 20% was 2013. You can't look at Cecchini worst season and think that fully reflects the player he is, just like you can't use 2013 salem stats to show how far he has dropped. Sure Cecchini was bad last year, but his minor league numbers and his wRC+ is much better then Holts numbers. Cecchini was a better minor league player in the minors when looking at his whole career. Please stop jumping to a new argument every time your last one was wrong.
|
|
|