The guy I used to run The Hawkeye State with and who now helps run The High Porch Picnic, another Hawkeyes blog, asked me a question on twitter yesterday.
I've always wanted your opinion: Did Corey Patterson not work out because he was awful, or because the Cubs rushed him?
It's not something I've thought all that much about for several years. I recall thinking about this for the first time back in 2005 when Patterson was struggling. We often heard about how his struggles were related to him being rushed to the big leagues several years earlier. Patterson reached the big leagues in his age 20 season. He had just turned 21 and rosters expanded. He played in 11 games in 2000 and I remember being as excited as I'd ever been about a young Cubs player. He would spend much of the next season back in the minors, but managed to play in 59 games in 2001. He took over full time in 2002.
Was he rushed? To be honest, I really don't even know what that means. Consider an 18 year old in Low A who is hitting the ball rather well. He's young for the level, but is also showing that he's superior to much of the competition. What is a team supposed to do? Leave the player on track for one season per year or challenge him? There may be some who think taking it more slowly would be the right way to do it, but what exactly is that 18 year old going to learn in a level he's clearly too good to be in? Can he learn more at the next level? I don't know the answer to this question and I'm not sure anybody else does.
While being superior to the competition may indicate that you should move up a level to be challenged, it also may be a good time to focus on aspects of the game that are likely to trip you up down the road. However, would working on that in a league you're superior be successful? Again, I don't know.
If we move away from baseball for a minute and look at this from a different perspective it might help us. Imagine an 18 year old kid beginning college. He's taking Calc 101, but it's a breeze. He's acing all the tests. He's spending far less time working on it than the other kids are. Would it be beneficial to leave this 18 year old in that class or challenge him?
I think the answer becomes clear in this case. Leaving him in Calc 101 is going to accomplish very little. Parents and educators agree with this. Being challenged in the classroom is considered to be far more important than acing every test. At least it is for some people anyway. Parents want to see their children being challenged. They certainly want to see them perform well, but if it comes to easy for them the student could be complacent. When the math gets harder it may be more difficult for him as he hasn't developed the study habits he'll require later on. He could become disappointed in himself as it becomes more difficult.
Now imagine a 30 year old in middle management. He's able to complete his required tasks easily. He has time to spend on twitter and Facebook. He's sending emails to his family. The amount of work he's been given is less than he is capable of accomplishing. In the business world the bosses will just give the guy more work to do without increasing his pay. But they will give him more work than they gave the previous employee because he can handle more.
In the working world and in the classroom challenging a person is seen as more important than letting someone be unchallenged. I think this is true in sports and I believe the way players are promoted shows that those running the minor league systems (all of them) agree. It's better to send the 18 year old excelling in Low A to High A than it is to have him work on a few things against inferior competition. Teams do this all the time. There are many players who are promoted aggressively through the minor leagues.
When we're talking about who was rushed and who wasn't, I'd also add that what we're really talking about is who didn't live up to expectations and who did. If Corey Patterson turned into half the player we expected I don't think we'd be talking about whether or not he was rushed. Was Evan Longoria rushed? What about Starlin Castro? Ken Griffey, Jr.? Mike Leake?
Think about it for a moment. If rushing players was detrimental to their future, no player would be rushed. Teams invest large sums of money and a significant amount of time in developing these players. It's in their interest to do everything they can to ensure each player has the best chance to succeed. If rushing a player was a negative, couldn't we also sit here and wonder how good Evan Longoria would be if he wasn't rushed to the big leagues?
I understand why people think certain players were rushed. They're young and because of this high expectations are placed on the athlete. Just look at Starlin Castro. He's already the face of the Cubs franchise and he's 22 years old. He's also going to disappoint because he won't be half as good as many people are expecting. Many are expecting him to be a superstar and Castro is not that. There are too many holes in his game to make it likely he reaches that level. When these guys fail to reach expectations, they wonder what could have gone wrong. But really, we already know what went wrong. Take a look at the 1st round of the 2004 Draft.
The best player in the country at the time never even reached the big leagues. Of the 41 1st round picks, only Justin Verlander, Jered Weaver, Stephen Drew, Gio Gonzalez, Billy Butler and Huston Street have been worth more than 5 rWAR. Only Weaver (26.7) and Verlander (26.8) have been worth more than 10.7. 19 of the 41 either didn't reach the big leagues or were worth 0 rWAR or less. All of thse first round picks had considerable talent and half of them provided no value to the big league club. 26 of them provided less than 1 rWAR. All of them were elite talents where they played prior to the draft. A couple remain elite, but the others have reached a point where they're not only no longer better than everyone else, but for most of them they're worse than everybody else. It happens.
It happened with Corey Patterson. It's happened with many other Cubs draft picks over the last 15+ years.
While I'm not certain I know the answer to this question, I am relatively confident that Patterson failing to reach his potential had little to nothing to do with rushing him. I could be wrong, but I don't know why baseball would be so different than everything else.
Comments
Cameron Maybin ———–> 5 years, $25 million plus 6th year option for $7-8 million.
Is this a good deal? My $28 million suggestion for Castro is way off if this is a good deal. Castro has a little less service time, but not all that much. If this is market value, $35 million is probably closer to what Castro is worth plus a 6th year option for $10-12 million.
mb21Quote Reply
Given this, what exactly is the point of keeping Rizzo in AAA to start the season? Limiting service time? We’re already burning option years because of his time in the majors last year, no?
sitrick2Quote Reply
@ sitrick2:
I’m not really sure. I suppose the best possible answer is that he struggled at the MLB level last year so maybe he needs more time in the minors. Then again, how much more time? He’s used 1 option so he has 2 remaining. 1 will be used this year. I’d probably start the season with him at 1st base and save that option in case you need to send him down after a month or two. Another possible answer is that maybe you can build some type of decent value for LaHair. Unlikely.
I’m actually questioning the decision to send Jackson down more. The Cubs don’t have 3 better outfielder. They don’t have 2. They don’t have 1. I suppose getting that 7th year of service time would be nice so I’m hoping he’s called up in early May like Castro was. I don’t want the Cubs to be penny pinching like the Rays do so I don’t care about that additional year of arbitration.
mb21Quote Reply
I’m guessing they handle Jackson the same way they handled Castro, service time-wise. As for Rizzo, the only utility in not having him here is getting regular ABs for LaHair. Any chance Rizzo could play 3B or LF, though?
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
doubt it. when the pads had a similar positional crunch, they opted to move the massive kyle blanks to the outfield, instead.
GWQuote Reply
@ GW:
Ah, thanks. Didn’t know that.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
yeah but lahair is taking reps in LF, i think.
Suburban kidQuote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
Yeah, if both LaHair and Rizzo are hitting at the end of ST, it’s going to be hard to justify burning another of Rizzo’s options, provided one of them can man another position.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Half our readership, I presume.
GBTSQuote Reply
That deal for Maybin is stupid.
GBTSQuote Reply
How many arb years did Maybin have left, and what were his expected raises?
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
I’m a thirtysomething, but not in middle management.
joshQuote Reply
Too easy.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
@ Mercurial Outfielder:
He would be eligible for arb this year. I just don’t think he’s very good. He’s fast and all though.
GBTSQuote Reply
He strikes out a lot for a guy whos main offensive value is a singles-hitting base stealer.
Edit: Upon further review, it looks like he’s developing some extra base power. Maybe not as bad as I thought.
GBTSQuote Reply
@ GBTS:
Was he a Super Two?
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Dierkes:
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
ACTQuote Reply
I also wonder if people get caught up in the idea that the minors are this magical place where players get better, but once they reach the majors, they can no longer improve.
XoomwaffleQuote Reply
The argument I’ve heard against bringing players up too fast is that if you put a hitter over his head, he’ll develop bad habits (e.g., cheating on fastballs).
ACTQuote Reply
@ ACT:
I would think MB recognizes that. I’ve always understood his objection to the “rushed” argument is that it really boils down to an exercise in confirmation bias because there’s no hard-and-fast line, past which a player is “ready.” So we end up saying a player was “ready” or “rushed” only in retrospect. But there’s no guarantee that that player that cheats on fastballs hasn’t been cheating all along, or that any amount of time in the minors would keep him from developing that bad habit. If he fails, he was rushed, if he succeeds he was ready. And that seems like a bad way of trying to evaluate a player’s career.
I’m sure MB will correct me if I’ve misstated his claims, but this is how I’ve always understood his position.
Mercurial OutfielderQuote Reply
Mercurial Outfielder wrote:
You summed it up perfectly.
I do think it’s important not to throw some hitter in over his head. If the Cubs began the year with Javier Baez at 3rd that would be pretty stupid. So I guess I do think there is some magical point, but it’s a point that I’m fairly certain is not often crossed. Even in that situation you’re evaluating it after the fact. Was Mike Leake brought up too quickly (no minor league experience)? Based on 2010 you might say that, but he improved quite a bit in 2011. I don’t think anybody would claim he’s been brought up too quickly at this point, but last year they probably did.
I’d also add that we fans have no clue whether or not a player is ready. We’re evaluating the player based solely on his stats and ignoring the wealth of information that is provided to the team by the scouts. We don’t have access to that information.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Xoomwaffle:
That’s possible though it does seem to me that the average person expects improvement at the big league level. I think they expect it too quickly and too much of an improvement.
mb21Quote Reply
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/03/carl-crawford-admits-he-likely-pushed-himself-too-soon-following-wrist-surgery/
BerseliusQuote Reply
How Szczur scored from 2B on a sac fly…
http://muskat.mlblogs.com/2012/03/03/33-outfield-play/
Byrd’s quote at the end confirms the silliness of leaping into the vines:
Rice CubeQuote Reply
Rice Cube wrote:
what? You mean the ivy isn’t sufficient padding? Who knew?
mb21Quote Reply
@ mb21:
Yeah, but the fans love it, tradition, hustle, grit, etc.
joshQuote Reply
josh, your new website is…interesting
http://www.wikifeet.com/
Suburban kidQuote Reply
CP has had plenty of time to overcome his inexperience, and still can’t identify and lay off breaking balls out of the strike zone. That’s why he’s looking for a new 5th OF job every off-season, not because he was rushed to big leagues all those years ago.
CubsinQuote Reply
@ Cubsin:
Exactly. If rushing him set him back early on, he’s had more than enough time to make up for it. He’s just one of those on a long list of top 10 picks who didn’t pan out. Actually, he’s probably been the average top 10 pick, but I’m not sure. Over 10 years a top 10 pick on average is worth about 15 WAR.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
That’s just odd.
mb21Quote Reply
@ Suburban kid:
If you don’t love feet, you can go fuck a donkey.
joshQuote Reply
I’m sorry, that was totally uncalled for. Of course we all love feet, and you were just joking. You really shouldn’t joke about feet, though. It’s cool. I get it.
joshQuote Reply
New shit: http://obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/red-alert-soriano-might-lead-off-some-games-and-prove-the-mayans-were-right.html
Aisle424Quote Reply