Arms race

The word in the Sun-Times this morning, going into the third day of the winter meetings, is that the Cubs want to sign Jason Heyward and then offer Soler to the Braves in exchange for a controllable young flamethrower like Miller or Teheràn. Meanwhile, there are reportedly talks with the Rays involving Javier Baez and various Tampa pitchers. The Cubs, it appears, have responded to their lackluster playoff performance against the golden-armed Mets by engaging in an arms race.

If these stories have legs, I’m okay with it. All I would say is that Soler and Baez have a certain usefulness to the Cubs going forward, whereas there are players in the system, also potentially attractive to other teams, who are more expendable.

I’m not referring to Gleyber Torres or Eloy Jimenez, who are #1 and #9 in Baseball America’s recent ranking of the Cubs’ top-ten prospects. Those two are simply too young to trade. Jimenez is a beast on the order of Soler, and maybe a better defender. And while you would think that Addison Russell was safe from any foreseeable challenge at shortstop, Gleyber might be the guy to push him. You don’t trade a young player who could turn out better than the one he would replace. If, in a year or two, the Cubs really did believe that a transition at SS would be seamless, imagine what the return would be in a trade involving Russell!

The expendables I am referring to are Willson Contreras and Jeimer Candelario, #2 and #10 in the recent BA listing. I take the Cubs at their word that Kyle Schwarber will transition to mostly being a catcher. Sometimes the Cubs say things that are PR when directed toward their own players and fans, or misdirection toward other teams. But I also believe in this principle of team construction: play a guy at the hardest position that he can handle well. If Schwarber can become a pretty good catcher, then play him there. Does that leave Contreras with the job of backup catcher? Maybe–but I don’t think so, because, like Tim Cossins and Mike Borzello and Chris Bosio and other Cub coaches, I’m a Cael Brockmeyer fan.

The 6-foot-5, 235-pound Brockmeyer seems too big to be a catcher.

“He’s a freak,” Borzello said. “You’re talking about a guy who’s a monster, and somehow he becomes small when he’s catching. You want to be a big target but catch small — it’s hard to explain. He can get underneath any baseball you throw, which makes it a lot easier to receive.”

Getting low is important because if you can get down below a pitch at the knees, the ump is more likely to call it a strike. I happened to see Brockmeyer last summer when Myrtle Beach visited the Potomac Nationals, and he did a superb job of framing several below-the-knee fastballs that Duane Underwood was issuing. Brockmeyer was in A+ last season, because, at 23, that’s where his bat belongs, but he has done stints at both double and triple A–because that’s where his glove belongs. If they need a guy to catch, they call him up. I think the major-league club will feel the same way. I know that Theo & Co. like defense-first catchers, because they employed two of them (especially David Ross) in the majors last season. And speaking of getting low: Brockmeyer was charged with one passed ball in 585 innings last season (including 68 innings in the Arizona Fall League).

Schwarber and Brockmeyer would make a pretty solid catching duo, and might not leave any possible opening for Contreras.

Like Contreras, Jeimer Candelario had a breakout year with his bat last year, mainly at double-A. I saw him also at Potomac, before he was called up to Tennessee. Athletically, he stands out from the crowd. His best position is third base; but, according to the theory that you play a guy at the hardest position he can handle well, Kris Bryant will be blocking Candelario’s path to the majors for the foreseeable future. Nobody thinks Candelario might be better than Bryant.

In my time as a Cub fan, I don’t recall an excellent prospect being blocked by a player in the majors, and here I’ve just identified two of them. It’s a good time to be a Cub fan, and an interesting time. There’s a bit of a learning curve.

Pitching prospects — final numbers

This is a final, end-of-season list of Cub pitching prospects ranked according to the formula K9-(H9+BB9). That’s strikeouts per nine innings minus the sum of hits-per-nine and walks-per-nine. Three pitchers on the list–Edwards, Jr., Garner and Buchter–have strikeout totals that exceed the sum of hits allowed and walks surrendered. Similar rankings in years past have taught me that very few apprentice pitchers become major leaguers, and that it is appropriate, therefore, to set the bar very high. The numbers indicate that Edwards, Jr., is our top pitching prospect today. Most of our other high prospects are lower down in the system, with nine of the top twenty just having completed a championship season at high-A Myrtle Beach. Those nine Pelicans, highest to lowest, are Garner, Markey, Berg, Skulina, Farris, Underwood, Rakkar, Pugliese and Martinez. (Pugliese finished the season with two relief appearances at Tennessee, and did not participate in Myrtle Beach’s playoff run.)

I know that bench space is limited in the pen, but Buchter and Francescon look like they might be able to help the big-league club right now.

Ryan Williams is tenth or eleventh on the list, depending on whether you include Trevor Cahill with his scant 7.2 innings. Williams is held down by modest strikeout numbers, but 109 hits and 18 walks in 141.2 innings is crazy. Williams skipped Myrtle Beach and put up most of his numbers at AA Tennessee in just his first full year as a pro.

Williams was also the Cubs’ winningest minor-league pitcher at 14-3, with ten of those wins for Tennessee. This is anecdotal, and does not affect the rankings in any way. Mitch Atkins–never considered a strong pitching prospect–was 13-4 in 2006 and 17-7 in 2008. But Atkins’ numbers in those two years, according to the K9-(H9+BB9) formula, were -7.20 and -7.83, whereas Williams this year is at -1.84.

Hitting prospects–final numbers

This is a ranking based on total bases, walks, steals and games played. It takes the sum of total bases + walks + SBs, adjusts it slightly, and divides by games played to arrive at a score, according to which the players are ranked. (Hitting prospects are starters, not pinch hitters or defensive replacements, so dividing by games is roughly the same as dividing by at-bats or plate appearances.)

The adjustment represented by the “adj points” column is Points minus Games. This adjustment rests on the idea that one total base (or walk or SB) per game is a baseline, required to get you to zero.

Players included here are at South Bend (“sbn”) or higher. I include Eugene (half-season league) numbers and even Arizona League (“cbz”) numbers if a player has advanced to South Bend (A ball) or above.

Bryant, Schwarber and Russell are ex-prospects, and Lake is gone, but I leave their numbers on the table for reference. The top ten hitting prospects, then, based on this formula and these full-season numbers, are:

1. Baez (Javier)
2. Happ
3. Szczur
4. Zagunis
5. Andreoli
6. Vogelbach
7. Contreras
8. Baez (Jeffrey)
9. Young
10. McKinney

I don’t feel that I should give Gleyber Torres a bump up for being a flashy shortstop, since this is a list of hitting prospects. I am aware that in previous years, the list’s top echelon has featured more than a couple of 1B-LF types who could hit as well as any shortstop but were not real prospects, since you have to hit almost like Rizzo to play first base in the majors. (Rizzo is a superb 1B as well.) When Rizzo played 70 games at Iowa in 2012, we ranked him at the top of this list, with a score of 1.91.

I neglected to produce this ranking in 2013 and 2014. In 2010, there were six players at the top of the ranking with a score of 1.40 or higher: Starlin Castro (1.88), Brett Jackson (1.69), Brandon Guyer (1.68), Brad Snyder (1.62), Robinson Chirinos (1.51) and Micah Hoffpauir (1.40). Castro, Guyer and Chirinos are solid major leaguers. Snyder and Hoffpauir are first basemen. I can’t explain the demise of Brett Jackson.

Right behind Hoffpauir in 2010 were Dubois, LaHair and Canzler, three more first basemen. This was the Cub organization in 2010: draft picks and time and money wasted on 1B-LFs. In 2011, the year before Theo took over, a second-round pick was used on Dan Vogelbach, who four-and-a-half seasons later is still at AA. The organization has changed since Vogelbach was picked. First basemen are not prominent in the 2015 list. I see Vogelbach near the top, Jacob Rogers in the middle and Balaguert and Matt Rose farther down, out of sixty-five names.

Happ may be a little high in the ranking, since he put up his best numbers, by far, at Eugene. (Players who weren’t promoted from Eugene don’t even get their names and numbers in this list.) On the other hand, Happ did rack up 65 total bases in 38 games at South Bend, with just about half his hits going for extra bases. It’s just his first half-season of ball anyway, but he has shown what we should be looking for in a hitter: hard contact, the ability to take a pitch, and speed and aggressiveness on the bases.

What’s the next level for Schwarber?

He needs to be challenged.

Hitting prospects 2015

This is a ranking system that considers a base that is stolen to be as valid a unit of offensive production as a base that is attained any other way. It takes the sum of total bases + walks + SBs, adjusts it slightly, and divides by games played to arrive at a score, according to which the players are ranked. (Hitting prospects are starters, not pinch hitters or defensive replacements, so dividing by games is roughly the same as dividing by at-bats or plate appearances.)

The adjustment represented by the “adj points” column is Points minus Games. This adjustment rests on the idea that one total base (or walk or SB) per game is a baseline, required to get you to zero.

Players included here are at South Bend (“sbn”) or higher. I include Eugene (half-season league) numbers and even Arizona League (“cbz”) numbers if a player has advanced to South Bend (A ball) or above.

This is the first Hitting Prospects list I have compiled since 2013, and I find it clarifying. I look at box scores and slash lines pretty closely from day to day and week to week, and yet when I build this data table and then sort by “score,” high to low, the results surprise me. I wasn’t expecting to see Ian Happ at the top of the ranking, now that Bryant and Schwarber are gone. Before today, I would have mentioned Contreras, McKinney, Young and Torres as the best hitting prospects. Now I can see that they’re a little weak in the total-bases department. Too many of their hits are singles. Contreras in particular may not have the pop you would like to see in a righty-hitting catcher. Today, with this list in front of me, the best hitters look like Happ, (Javier) Baez and Zagunis. (I would also mention Matt Szczur, a late bloomer who, if he can turn it up another notch, could find a place in someone’s outfield.)

In major-league stats today, WAR is the standard composite number, which is fine, except that I spend more time trying to rank minor leaguers, who don’t get WARs. Without a convenient composite number, minor-league reputations tend to be internet-scout-driven. (Hype-driven?) The table above attempts a number-driven ranking, superior, I think to OPS, because it takes speed into account.

Meanwhile, below, I have generated scores, based on the same formula described at the top of this post, for a handful of major-league players including Anthony Rizzo and the four “core” 2015 Cub rookies. I sort the table by the Score column, but I have appended the player’s offensive WAR (oWAR) in the column at the far right.

The rankings are roughly similar, but with some disagreements. The discrepancies are mainly, I would say, regarding Trout, Votto and Schwarber. Even though it’s called offensive WAR, oWAR adjusts for defensive position, so that could penalize first-baseman Goldschmidt (5.5) and even corner-OF Harper (6.2) relative to centerfielder Trout (6.8). Also, oWAR may privilege Trout’s high total-base number over Harper’s and Goldschmidt’s and especially Votto’s high number of walks. My formula counts total-base units and walks equally.

I have Chris Davis with a higher score than Kris Bryant. According to oWAR, Bryant is better. I assume that is because Bryant plays a defensive position, third, while Davis stiffs it out at first; but my post is titled Hitting (not Fielding) Prospects. Generally, we have a sense of what position a player plays, and whether he is competent at that position, before we start looking at offensive numbers, and we allow for the difference between center and left, short and second, third and first. So Davis ranks slightly higher in my ranking while I recognize that Bryant is more valuable.

I have no idea why Schwarber’s oWAR is so low. The WAR formulas are a bit complicated for my taste, to be honest.

Why aren’t there minor-league WAR numbers? Apparently, WAR needs a certain data-collecting infrastructure that professional baseball at the minor-league level is not equipped to provide.

Pitching Prospects 2015 (updated)

Here is an updated list, current through Monday, 8/10, of Cub pitching prospects ranked according to the formula K9-(H9+BB9). That’s strikeouts per nine innings minus the sum of hits-per-nine and walks-per-nine. Only two pitchers on the list–Carl Edwards, Jr., and David Berg–have strikeout totals that exceed the sum of hits allowed and walks surrendered. One of them, Berg, has thrown only twelve innings and could drop into negative territory in his next outing. Similar rankings in years past have taught me that very few apprentice pitchers become major leaguers, and that it is appropriate, therefore, to set the bar very high. The rankings certainly indicate that Edwards, Jr., is in a class by himself in the organization.

It’s a little bit of a sanity check that when the Cubs acquired Tommy Hunter recently, Ivan Pineyro was the pitching prospect that the Orioles wanted in exchange. Pineyro ranks fourth among starting pitchers in this table, behind only Markey, Williams and Pena, and ahead of Skulina and (Pierce) Johnson.

Numbers drawn from the Cubs AZL team or from their half-season team (Eugene) in the Northwest League are not included here unless the player was promoted to South Bend or higher, in which case Arizona and/or Eugene numbers are aggregated with the higher-level numbers.

Hot in DesMoines

Apart from Junior Lake, who is sporting an OPS around .900, a couple of Iowa Cubs have been on tears recently: Rubi Silva and Christian Villanueva. Both are hitting around .275, but Silva now has ten HRs and Villanueva has thirteen.

I always liked the way Silva chased flies in right field (on TV during spring training), and I knew he threw out a lot of runners on the bases–62 outfield assists since 2011, including nine this season. On the other hand, he’s twenty-six; and the front office won’t like his four walks in 250 PAs.

Villanueva is 24, but with a June 19 birthday, he misses being league-age 23 by six weeks. With 13 HRs, 51 RBI, and a slash of .275/.331/.498(/.829), plus a highlight-reel glove at third, he’s looking like the prospect the Cubs thought they were getting when they acquired him, along with Kyle Hendricks, from Texas for Ryan Dempster in 2012.

This new affiliate is abominable

The new Cub affiliate in the Northwest League this (short) season is the Eugene Emeralds. The team’s logo is not a gem, however. It’s actually Bigfoot–

–with an emerald-green tinge. The team jersey features a curve-y letter E–with toes sticking up!

Calling themselves the Eugene Bigfeet would be problematic. After all, you want your fans to believe in you. Would you trust a story about what the Bigfeet were seen doing in their game last night, even from someone claiming to be an eyewitness?

It would be a long busride for one of the teams–maybe they could meet in the midwest somewhere–but I look forward someday to a showdown between the Emeralds and their natural short-season rivals in the New York-Penn League, the Vermont Lake Monsters, whose symbol is Champy, an aquatic serpent who arrived at Lake Champlain by way of Loch Ness.

A series like that would be mythical!

Rivalry

In another venue, I made the observation that the vaunted Cub-Cardinal rivalry was not much of a rivalry from their point of view, that is, the view of the St. Louis team and its fans. After all, they have snagged eleven World Series titles since our most recent one in 1908. I was a bit surprised, then, when someone pointed out that head-to-head, historically, it’s us with 1191 wins, them with 1143.

After a quick dip into the record books, here are a couple of observations about our illustrious red-capped rivals.

The Cubs may have had as many or more hall-of-fame players, but the Cards had players who were transcendent, the best of their era: Hornsby, Dizzy Dean, Musial, Gibson, Ozzie Smith, Pujols. Players like that attract championships in a way that Williams and Banks and Santo and Jenkins and Sandberg just don’t.

(But wait a moment: Banks in the late fifties doesn’t really belong with the non-transcendents.)

The Cardinals have had first-rate catchers over the years: Torre and McCarver and Ted Simmons and Yadier. The catching position is the backbone of the team on the field; or so it would seem, watching the Cardinals operate.

Then there were the hall-of-fame managers. Whitey Herzog led the Ozzie Smith-led team to a world series in the ’80s plus two seven-game Series losses. Herzog was followed by Torre and then quickly by LaRussa. Torre didn’t have the players that Herzog and LaRussa had.

The Cards won titles in the 60’s under Johnny Keane and Red Schoendienst. Schoendienst managed the team to over a thousand wins with the help of all-time great Bob Gibson and the likes of Cepeda and Brock. (Ouch–that last name hurts!)

Are the Cubs building a team with a trancendent player, a solid backstop and a tough and shrewd manager? I certainly think they’re trying. I could imagine a transcendent player or two among the names already in the Cub organization. Behind the plate, I think they’ve settled on someone long-term. The manager has a heralded career and a clear path to Cooperstown if this hungry team succeeds.

May a great Cub-Card rivalry begin! (Next week in Wrigley won’t be too soon.)

Pitching Prospects 2015

This is a chart that I have neglected for a couple of seasons. Without it, I find that I can’t keep track of the organizational who’s who in the pitching department. I always liked the simplicity of the approach in this table. I used to call this the Marmol Index. I subtracted hits per inning, always a low number with Marmol, from strikeouts per inning, always a high number. I ignored walks and hit batters, which were precursors of a Marmol implosion. But I argued that electric stuff and not control was the sign of a genuine pitching prospect.

Later I calculated a little arithmetic bonus for starting pitchers, on the grounds that they were pacing themselves and not trying to strike everyone out. I had noticed that all the top pitchers in my table were relievers. But I’ve had second thoughts about this bump-up for starters. First of all, it made a simple formula complicated, and I don’t like baseball stats that are overly clever. I also noticed that the starting pitchers in the organization were failing in the majors, too, and not just in my rankings. The few good starters we have had–names like Archer and Cashner and sometimes even Samardzija–did fine in the Marmol index. Meanwhile two of my high-ranking relievers, Beliveau and Rosscup, have become major leaguers, and two others, Buchter and Kurcz, are still battling, putting up good numbers in triple A and just waiting, waiting for a call-up from the Dodgers and Braves, respectively. But if you were in the middle of the pack on the Marmol Index, you are carrying a lunch pail today.

I have added a tweak to the formula, and am no longer calling it the Marmol Index. We have seen, after all, what happened to Marmol in the long run. His wildness did him in, finally, didn’t it? I still calculate strikeouts per nine innings minus hits per nine innings. I still think that’s an indication of electric stuff. But today, in the rightmost column that I sort by to produce the ultimate ranking, I add hits and walks together, per nine innings, and subtract that number from K/9. So I am counting walks. Walks count. A pitcher like Gerardo Concepcion, whose K’s exceed his hits but just barely exceed his BB’s, drops to 45th in the ranking today. The Marmol Index would put him at 14th.

Looking at my top ten: I had already noticed Ryan Williams, because he’s a starter, and so his numbers are more conspicuous in a box score. But I hadn’t noticed James Farris, or Tayler Scott, or Trevor Clifton. Now I will keep an eye on those guys. That’s the purpose of this ranking.

Note that only the top five pitchers have a positive score, meaning that they have more strikeouts than the combined walks and hits allowed.