Add new comment

Couldn't not post after the kind words.
I'll recap my original take on Langerhans -- streaky squared.  Which is odd, because my 'normal' template for streak hitters tend more toward the high K guys (Glaus) -- oh, wait, Glaus fans at a 25% rate, Langerhans at 30%.  (those are career averages). 
To clarify - guys strike out for lots of different reasons.  So, some high-K guys aren't overly streaky.  But most "overly streaky" hitters I've watched tend to fan a LOT.  This is because, (whatever the cause), when they are slumping, they are whiffing. 
My guess is that it's pitch recognition - when hot, they 'see' the ball earlier, and the beauty-swing shows up.  When cold, they 'see' the ball late, start the pretty-swing, then are forced to alter it - or (more often?) - don't, and simply miss the ball.  So, when judging the swing, they look fantastic.  But, when judging the results, not so much.
In 2010, Langerhans set a personal worst for K%, (47.7%).  In his two full Brave seasons, he had an O-Swing% of 14.7% (18.6% for his career).  In '09 and '10 with the Ms -- 27.5% and 21.8%.  Basically, Langerhans' pitch recognition is crappy as hell, unless he's playing 3-4 games a week, (300 PAs/yr).  He simply loses the zone, (and Ms coaches and/or utilization haven't done him ANY favors since moving to the great northwest).
Langherhans makes a great #4 OF, *NOT* because he's a good pinch-hitter, (he ain't).  It's because, if pressed into full-time regular duty, he can post a .750 OPS, or even something over .800 during a hot streak.  About the worst you could do is play him twice a week, because you'll get his worst level of aptitude with essentially zero chance at a positive streak - and he'll hit in the .600s and whif ... a lot.
==========
Saunders, on the other hand, had a K% in 2010 of 29.1%, (30.2% for all his MLB ABs).  But, his O-Swing% went 22.9% in '09 up to 28.2% in 2010.  He actually puts bat on ball better than Langerhans whether the ball is in the zone or not.  But, my take on Saunders is that he's simply another in a long line of "unteachable" Bavasi prospects.  IMO, by 2008, he was a "finished" hitter - as good as he'll ever be.  But, he had a "career year" in 2009 (at Tacoma), pushed mostly by a high average - so the perception was that he'd taken his game to another level.
But, like many high-K guys, he's streaky.  So, because he was streaky at AAA in 2009, he was dubbed 'ready' or 'near ready', and got the call.  In truth, I think after getting booked in the majors and watching his production drop like a rock in the second half - I think for the first time EVER, Saunders is actually on board with the idea that he has to change significantly to compete at the highest level.  So, he's listening to the coaches - trying to adjust - and like anyone doing anything for the first time, he's a disaster at the moment.
While I do believe that any athlete who gets to the point he has must have some kind of chance at starting from scratch - dumping old muscle memory - and coming back better than he was before -- my instinct is that he won't ... primarily because he lacks the mental foundation to deal with the reality of his situation.
I think the uber-stars (Griffey, AROD), are driven from birth, not only with the athletic gifts, but with a desire to constantly get better -- so they (on their own) - learn about tinkering, adjusting, adapting, even when it is not NEEDED.  But, I think many of the prospect washouts, who survived all their lives on simple athleticism, don't have the tools needed to deal with the mental aspects of "retooling" a swing, or dealing with a 300 point drop in OPS when tinkering with this or that part of a swing.
I think Saunders lands in AAA because the club has reasoned seeing more MLB pitching won't help.  Saunders must work out the kinks and build a new approach at a lower level - and *IF* he survives that process, then he comes back up.  Maybe after hitting .900 for a month, maybe after simply showing the scouts and coaches he's grown comfortable with the changes, regardless of immediate production.
My instinct is that he'll fail - because the track record of "change" in Bavasi era prospects was practically nil.  If I were looking for a production sign that he's become an MLB-viable hitter it would probably be a switch from the 2:1 double to HR ratio to a 1:2 ratio.  Based on the little I've seen, I think if he ever does put it ALL together, you'll see that kind of slosh in his power numbers.