=== Jack Cust ===
For example, w/r/t #6 above, Jack Cust fanned an average of 179 times per 550 AB's in the minors -- and a lot of that was as an old (experience) player in the minors, outmatching young pitchers!
Cust fanned one time every 3.07 AB's career, in MiLB, and for this reason was airily waved off by the same amigos who waved off Ryan Howard.
Dr. K asked if we remembered the scoffing directed at those who were interested in Ryan Howard. Yea verily, and also the scoffing after Cust's first month of bashing in the majors: "They'll start throwing him curve balls and he'll be back in the minors in a month."
Dr. D went EYE not CT%, and visually watched Cust cover those breaking pitches, and predicted something a little different. ;- ) You could look it up. This is a classic example of confusing deep-count hitting with an unsound approach at the plate. Most baseball scouts reject Three True Outcome pitch-stalkers if they're not obviously Jim Thome.
But Cust had a good EYE to go with that sucking-chest-wound CT%, and when he got to the majors he posted an OPS+ of 146 his first year. His ML OPS+ is 121 as we stand here.
..............
Amusingly, Cust was written off again pre-2010, even by the A's ... but here he is smoking (smoaking?) along at 120+ again in 2010.
.
=== Russell Branyan ===
Branyan fanned 208 times per full season in MiLB ... once every 2.65 AB's in the minors.
Hey, he even went down to AAA baseball in 2008, and what happened then? He fanned once every 3.1 at-bats. This despite the fact that Branyan is an excellent ML hitter.
What is a little odd about this, is that Branyan isn't even particularly a guy with a good EYE. His EYE was only 0.40 in MiLB.
.
=== Your Turn Now ===
Cust and Branyan are just a couple of reductio ad absurdums to exemplify the broader point in a very easy-to-see way: Dr. D doesn't remember high MiLB K rates, as such, ruling out ML success for power hitters.
He does remember sky-high K rates, as such, preventing good hitters from getting opportunities, because of the dogma that insisted their swings and approaches were not sound...
And he does remember guys who had Halmanesque MiLB ratios of 183/29 washing out if they could never improve those ratios.
.
=== w/r/t Mike Wilson and Greg Halman ===
I'm quite surprised that you good amigos see Wilson's 117 per 550 AB's rate as exorbitant, even if he did have a lousy EYE (which he doesn't). With a 33/25 EYE in 157 AB's (which is 117 K's in 550 AB's), he's got an EYE ratio that looks very good to me across the board.
117 K's doesn't seem like many to me at all for a 245-lb 40-homer type; I'm used to 150-180 rather commonly from sluggers like Buhner, Cameron, Pena, etc (in the majors) and now Howard, Reynolds etc have taken that to 180-210.
...............
Halman, if you get a chance to watch him, is MUCH more solid at the plate than his K's and EYE suggest. Granted he needs another year. But don't get the idea he's being abused down there. He's just dialed way up.
w/r/t Halman, I've got a great enthusiasm for KGaffney's principle of "let's see some harder AB's when he's down in the count."
..............
Anyhow, the thread's here for discussion. Definitely have an open mind about the K's principle, in its myriad applications Y+1, Y+2, Y+3 etc, and about whether Mike Wilson is a writeoff based on this principle.
At this point in the exchange, Mike Wilson's 2010 strikeouts put me off not even 1%. I see them as quite reasonable for where he is and who he is.
Keep tellin' me where I'm wrong. :- ) If I'm not, you can relax about Mike Wilson. He looks great to me.
.
Cheers,
Jeff
.
For me Wilson's Ks are ok, Halman's aren't. Eye is more important, but theres a borderline amount of Ks you can have IMO. 30+% is way too much in the PCL.
Overall the PCL is a weak pitchers league which may be why a lot of our hitters have such a hard time adjusting.
I'd give Wilson a shot, Halman needs more time. First you need to figure out what you're going to do with Branyan and Bradley though.
You could count on a Saunders-esque landing with him.
..................
Wilson, though, remember the spring training in which he hit 8 homers or something, including late in March? I can easily see a splash landing for him - the good kind.
Of course, saying that I think he's ready to roll, means saying there's a 25-30% chance that he becomes a fixture in Seattle. That means 70-75% chance that he doesn't.
Hmmmmm.
I never really thought of it that way - that maybe the Saunders, Clement, etc. problems are due to the pitching in the PCL.
Interesting 'put. Do the other ML teams with PCL affiliates have our problems with hitters adjusting to the majors? :- )
IL has been a stronger pitchers league the last few years.
Ya, I think you pretty have to give Wilson a shot. Thats what rebuilding years are for.
He has a lower% chance of being a quality regular, but I think his Mid is still a nice platoon player.
Branyan and Bradley are blocking his PT though. Gotta figure that out.
PCL by OPS:
2004: 803
2005: 792
2006: 757
2007: 783
2008: 792
2009: 758
2010: 766
Average: 779 OPS
IL OPS by year:
2006: 715
2007: 728
2008: 735
2009: 723
2010: 734
Average: 727 OPS
And use the other as your cleanup hitter next year, what would your decision be?
Doc,
You can't argue that Mike Wilson has a good eye over his minor league career. He doesn't. He does walk well - his career OBP his 98 points higher than his average. That's good. But his Ks are outrageously bad, so bad that they make his eye .4 for his career.
Now, Branyan is worse than that. But Branyan is a lefty, which made him valuable as a platoon player and let him prove his worth. And it still took years.
You're pulling 2010's data and declaring Wilson an easy sell. By his 2010 numbers alone, I would probably agree with you. They're improved across the board, to a level that looks useful.
Except there are 2300 other at-bats to look at, including those from just last year, that say he's a harder sell than you're making him out to be.
He had the same sample size last year as this year and managed a .664 OPS with a .35 eye and a K every 3.3 ABs - what makes this year more "predictive" than last? Injuries? Well Mike gets injured. Repeating the level? Well Mike sucks at every level when he first gets there - he's a slow learner.
FWIW, I do think Mike may be turning a corner into being a useful major-league bat. But if the Mariners thought so he wouldn't be batting 8th and 9th in the order in AAA.
He has 8 years of reports piled up on him within the org that say, "lazy and/or slow learner, injury-prone, can't recognize a breaking pitch if you draw him a diagram, but gets on base and can hit it far."
Maybe these 300 ABs are getting them to switch that to, "Hits it far, gets on base, injury prone, improved pitch recognition, has started to put in the work."
But trying to pluck Jack Custs and Russell Branyans out of the minors is not easy, and they usually tell you early that they're special. Cust was running even batting eyes as an 18 year old, and clubbing for huge power in AAA at 22. It wasn't his fault nobody believed in him. Branyan hit 40 HRs in A ball at 20. Reynolds is the same age as Wilson and has been in the bigs for 4 years.
Wilson has been back and forth to AA since 2006, with various results. He blew by the 1500 AB mark, and then the 2000 one, with no indication he would be more than he's always been: a powerful, sloppy hitter without the ability to consistently make contact. What he's doing now has been done by dozens and dozens of career-minor-leaguers - you play enough baseball, you get the hang of it, at least against your peers when no one's grading you. The bigs are different.
Pure Ks-per-AB doesn't tell you everything about a player, but the number of players with strikeouts that large in the minors who become every-day major leaguers is very small. If you strike out every 3 ABs against RHP in the minors where there are no scouting reports and pitchers can't hit their spots, and you've been doing it every year for EIGHT years with no improvement until this one, which number looks like an outlier? The constant, gaping holes or the new apparent improvement?
I would like to see Wilson get a chance. But I'm telling you he has an uphill slog in this organization. Saunders is 3 years younger with better results even with his own limitations. Halman is 4 years younger and at the same level, with similar limitations (though with a worse eye). Peguero is on his tail, as is Raben.
Has Mike Wilson had a breakthrough? He might have indeed. But he has to overcome his own history and its perception, as well as several similar players and a dearth of roster spots.
I wish him the best in doing it - we could use another Jack Cust/Russell Branyan. But I wouldn't be too quick to wave off the large red flags on his resume, of which K:AB is one. The Mariners aren't.
~G
Taro summed up my opinion. I have no problem with Mike Wilson's strikeout rate. While he is old for the league, I think his injury history helps mitigate that somewhat, as does his primarily football background.
As I gotten older and more tired I have come to appreciate better the reluctance to invest in B- prospects. Let's start with the premise that Wilson is a 1,000 MLB plate appearances away from being league average with the bat (much like Michael Saunders current path) with an outside chance at a 120 OPS+. At that point he'll be 29 and ready for his age decline. He has a long history of injury so what is to say you don't metaphorically buy your ice cream cone only to see the scoop fall to the sidewalk at age 29. Also, if you think Saunders is a B prospect, rather than a B-, shouldn't you try and accelerate his development since he will still be on the positive side of the age/development arch when he gets his 1,000 at bats. In short, you need to think that Wilson will be ready to contribute positive numbers from day one to have his promotion make much sense.
Hey Doc,
Compelling stuff. It seems in Part I that you're talking about a chicken or egg scenario. Does players that have an extraordinary high MILB K rate and fail in MLB also have a cruddy EYe? And do the ones that succeed , Jack Cust or Ryan Howard, for example have a nice EYE? Ergo, does the poor eye guy K a bunch because he's always behind in the count after swinging at balls out of the zone. And does the guy that does succeed do so because he doesn't swing at marginal pitches early as he "stalks" the pitch he wants.
I like the idea. A lot. Guys who "stalk" may not end up with a ton of walks...but may not give up many AB's as well. They may be looking for the 2 pitches a game that they can turn on.
Historically, Frank Howard was a monster. In '67 and '68 he struck out around 150 times each season. ONly 60 and 54 walks. OPSed at a rate of 153 AND 170! And those weren't high batting average years.
Tony Armas struck out 128 and 115 times in '80 and '81. Only walked 29 and 19 times. OPSed 126 and 125. That might be Halman like numbers. But cetainly Wilson's eye will mean he walks a shoe bunch more than that.
Remember "Byb Bye" Balboni. Struck out 139 and 166 times in '84 and '85. OPSed those years at a rate of 123 and 111. Most interesting about Balboni was his K rate in AAA ball. He came up for good in '84 (with brief call ups in the two previous seasons), in AAA ball from '81-'83 he played in 292 games and struck out 305 times! By conventional wisdom he couldn't hit MLB pitcing because MLB pitchers would find the hole in his swing. WRONG!
I've already compared (a month ago or so) Mike Wilson to Greg Luzinski. will not do it again here. but it is a very fair comparison. Luzinski was a very productive hitter.
I think we get hung up on the fact that we look at a Wilson-typed ans we say, "But he would be dead meat against Cliff Lee, or Felix, or Greg Maddux, or Jim Palmer or Tom Seaver or Orel Hershiser!" Well he would be...but so is the rest of baseball (Minus the short list of batters with equally impressive resumes). Those guys get everybody out.
But how would a Wilson do against a teams #3's-5's? How would he do against the long relief guy? I believe he would be a productive hitter! A MLB asset!
Bob gibson got everybodyout in 68 for the Cardinals. Nellie Briles and Steve Carlton, the #2 and #3 starters for the Cards that year didn't.
Mike Wilson would fare just fine against a regular diet of Nelson Briles.
Put him in the lineup.
moe
First, I wholeheartedly agree that my vague recollection of a study I read five years ago is not convincing. The context of said study is important, which was trying to find out why some players didn't convert to MLB well even though they had the MiLB OPS to indicate they could hit. I have no memory of walk rate being a part of the discussion.
============================
Regarding the why contact rate could be an important marker independent of eye; I believe that it is a proxy for ability to square up the ball. So if someone has a high strikeout rate, but also walks a lot and has a high line drive rate (or batting average as a potential proxy), then I want to go watch a week of his at-bats to see if he is just a hitter that patiently awaits his pitch and then nails it. If someone has a high strikeout rate, but doesn't walk a lot and doesn't hit a lot of line drives (or has a low batting average), I'm concerned that I have a free swinger that can mash a centered Doug Fister fastball or a slider that doesn't break, but does have the pitch recognition ability to wait out his pitch and is in deep trouble squaring up pitcher's pitches.
I also think that the pitch stalker archetype is going to struggle to transition to the MLB. What qualifies as a good pitch to hit in the texas league doesn't come your way so often in the big leagues, whereas a see the ball hit the ball player may be putting good wood on tough pitches in the Texas league because he doesn't have the good sense to lay off it. This helps the scout, because it can give them confidence that the hitter can do something valuable with a pitcher's pitch. The problem, of course, is this hitter hasn't demonstrated the ability to distinguish a pitcher's pitch from a hitter's pitch (not many hitters can consistently punish pitcher's pitches in the majors. Just ask Jose Lopez.).
There are a lot of days when an MLB hitter doesn't get a single meatball pitch in a hitters count. Acquitting yourself with the bat on such a day is extremely hard, so it is important to have other things to offer. This also helps explain why TTO players get so little opportunity to make it. They generally have the grace of a drunk rhino in the field and generally will wait out a mistake at the plate even if one is not in the offering.
As an aside, I think Jack Cust passed these tests since he was Baseball America's 31st and 38th best prospect in pre-season 2000 and 2001, walked frequently, and generally ran fair to high BAs despite the K rate (~0.374 BABIP in the minors).
You pretty much have to get rid of both of them if you want Wilson to get a shot (or Halman this year or next). There isn't a spot for him in the lineup and you don't want him eating up anymore of Saunders' ABs.
If you want guys like Tui and Mangini to get a look this year or next, Lopez needs to go too.
What if Ackley is ready the beggining of next year? Triunfel? Or any number of high minors guys.
This is why I was so against giving up something to get Branyan.
I'm not arguing that he has a good EYE for his career.
I'm asking the question: does youse guys' CT% theorem hold for career CT%? Or current CT%? Or what?
That's why I wanted to see the studies. What do they say about a guy whose CT% used to be bad and is now good?
will follow up later.
The ability to square the ball up (scouting HIT grade) is certainly important ... the key factor here, though, is how many pitches does the guy take before he swings...
In high school leagues where it's 3 BB's for a walk and 2 K's for a strikeout, the BB's and K's are through the roof.
But that's what a Mike Wilson is doing relative to an Ichiro -- letting the first two pitches go by.
..................
I never associated Adam Dunn's BBs and Ks with an inability to square the ball. Just associated it with his accepting a high-school short count.
Again would like to see the studies: maybe they 'passed' Cust for dubious, subjective reasons that call the study into question, I dunno...
................
Earlier the statement was "one strikeout every 3.5 AB's is not sustainable for success. It just isn't."
Cust and Branyan fan once every 3.0, minors and majors, and we would find a bunch more players like them if we looked.
.....................
Am not disputing that the odds are with the house and against Wilson, like they are for most players.
Am arguing that Wilson's K rate, in 2010, does not in-and-of-itself make him a prohibitive longshot.
...................
G, if Wilson's K rate in 2010 is an aberration then I agree with you. If his 2010 K rates are signs of a breakthrough, then the current Wilson is the one that is relevant.
It says here that he has broken through, and big time. We'll see.
Better hitters in PCL?
Is Garret Jones, who ran an iff .33 EYE in the minors, but when he was called up by Pittsburgh (out of necessity from selling off their players as opposed to impressiveness) came up, and while he struck out more, also learned how to walk at a higher rate than ever before in the minors and has a .5 EYE over the last two years.
But Taro's hunch jibes with my own eyeballs, for what it's worth. In recent years, the PCL seems heavier on bats than arms, ya. (?)
You get a good pitcher rolling in there, and it seems like weeks till he's up. But MOTO hitters might be there for two-three years.
I dunno.
His statcorner page shows that he's striking out swinging at a lower rate than last year (though higher than 08) and striking out looking at the highest rate of his career while walking at the highest rate of his career. So Halman may have begun tranforming into that Stalker Archetype.
The vast majority of parks in the PCL are at elevations significantly higher than the vast majority of parks in the IL.
Makes sense. Tacoma is like the only real pitcher's park in the PCL.
50 OPS spread that you have to account for when calculating those MLEs.
Who was no good at 26-27, but who went on to become a MOTO hitter in the bigs.
Age-arc is a bedrock principle for hitters, but it's not an absolute. If Wilson goes on to become a MOTO it's not going to be shocking.
Halman being only 22 in AAA baseball.
If he were stalled out two years from now, it still wouldn't be the end.
....................
All spects are dice rolls, but Halman is doing a whale of a lot at age 22.
You see...I went to a lot of minor league baseball games in 1994 and 1995...single-A Carolina League. My team happened to have a bunch of major leaguers on it those two years and the stories of their careers are interesting to me and can be used to demonstrate some of the things a sabermetrician looks at when he's trying to decide if a prospect has a real shot at the bigs or not.
We've got a lot of work to do, as to predicting the ML transitions of prospects sabermetrically ... I'll bet you it's harder than BP thinks it is :- ) but the more we know the better...