JOT: Cubs Minor League Recap 8-6-13

In Commentary And Analysis, Minor Leagues by myles88 Comments

Iowa Cubs 10 @ Tacoma Rainiers 3

Hey! Mike Olt hit a home run and walked 3 times! Clearly, his struggles are over. Darnell McDonald went 2-6 with a jack, as did Dave Sappelt. Player of the day (for this team), though, was Edgar Gonzalez. He was 5-6 with 3 home runs!

Yoanner Negrin had a nice semi-start, going 4 innings where he allowed 5 hits, a walk, and an earned run (2 runs total). He also fanned 7. Nick Struck got the win with an inning of relief. Marcus Hatley allowed a run in an inning; then, Marcos Mateo, Chang-Yong Lim, and Brian Schlitter each had a scoreless inning.

It's also important to note that Cael Brockmeyer was promoted from Boise to Iowa. It's just a roster juggling move, most likely, and he'll be sent back down in short order, but he did go 1-3 with a walk and 2 strikeouts.

Tennessee Smokies 10 @ Jacksonville Suns 0

Eric Jokisch pitched a no-hitter! It's the second in the Cubs' organization this year (Matt Loosen, also on the Smokies' rotation, pitching one in Daytona). He allowed 4 walks, and fanned 8. It took Jokisch 108 pitches, which isn't all that bad. The MiLB website isn't showing me his game logs, so I'm not a hundred percent sure how good he's been lately, but he was struggling in the middle of the season, and hopefully those struggles are now behind him.

Javier Baez went 4-6 with 2 doubles and 3 RBI (he also struck out once). He stole his 5th base, as well. Rubi Silva went 3-5 with a walk. Matt Szczur went 2-5 with a double and a walk. Rafael Lopez, Jonathan Mota, and Eric Jokisch each had a pair of hits, as well. That's right; Jokisch outhit the Suns 2 to 0. He also walked, because of course.

Chicago Cubs 8 @ Philadelphia Phillies 9

Lots of offense in this one. Nate Schierholtz continues to do good work, going 3-5 with a double and 2 RBI/Runs. Anthony Rizzo went deep, as did the lily-white Donnie Murphy (his home run was a 3-run blast). Welington Castillo went 3-4 with a walk, and I think at the end of the year people are going to be very pleasantly surprised at the year he's had. He's lost a great deal of his power, but the tradeoff was been fewer strikeouts (as the tradeoff usually is); though his BABIP is .360 and thus probably unsustainable, his career mark is .354 over 540 PA, indicating it'll likely be higher than normal. He has a .346 OBP and his defense has been much improved (a fair framer, great arm throwing runners out). The only hitless regular was Darwin Barney. Logan Watkins went 1-2 in pinch-hit duties.

Edwin Jackson got shelled, allowing 7 runs in 5 innings. Both Hector Rondon and Michael Bowden allowed runs; Rondon pitched 2 and Bowden pitched 1. I like Rondon's stuff, but at the end of the day he just doesn't get any results. He's better than Lendy Castillo, but given the makeup of our 40-man roster I have to think there's no way he's in organization next year unless no one claims him. 

Kane County Cougars 6 @ Clinton LumberKings 2

Albert Almora is on the shelf for 7 days. He probably isn't going to leave Kane County this year. Gioskar Amaya had another 3-hit performance, and Oliver Zapata had 2 hits but one was a home run. Dan Vogelbach doubled, Jeimer Candelario singled and walked twice, and Reggie Golden homered in the 9 hole.

Tayler Scott went 5 innings and allowed 2 runs on 6 hits/3 walks. Could be better. Andrew McKirahan pitched 2 perfect frames, and Al Yevoli and Michael Hamann finished it up with scoreless frames of their own.

DSL Mets1 4 @ DSL Cubs
VSL Cubs 3 @ VSL Mariners 7
AZL Cubs 1 @ AZL Dodgers 2

 

Share this Post

Comments

  1. Berselius

    I like Rondon’s stuff, but at the end of the day he just doesn’t get any results. He’s better than Lendy Castillo, but given the makeup of our 40-man roster I have to think there’s no way he’s in organization next year unless no one claims him.

    He can go hang out with David Patton and Deep Goat

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  2. Mucker

    I’m hoping somebody can help me. I was talking with my cousin and he said that baseball was the one sport where the talent level is roughly the same over the past 100 years as compared to the other major American sports. I disagreed and we got into a debate but then we were curious as to why Ruth was so good compared to his peers. We started to wonder what kind of pitches they threw back in those days. Was it mostly fastballs? Did they have change-ups and breaking pitches like they do today? Fastball variations like cutters, splitters, sinkers etc? Did they throw upper 90s back then? Anybody know the history of pitching? I tried googleing but couldn’t find much here at work.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  3. Egg Shan

    Mucker wrote:

    I’m hoping somebody can help me. I was talking with my cousin and he said that baseball was the one sport where the talent level is roughly the same over the past 100 years as compared to the other major American sports. I disagreed and we got into a debate but then we were curious as to why Ruth was so good compared to his peers. We started to wonder what kind of pitches they threw back in those days. Was it mostly fastballs? Did they have change-ups and breaking pitches like they do today? Fastball variations like cutters, splitters, sinkers etc? Did they throw upper 90s back then? Anybody know the history of pitching? I tried googleing but couldn’t find much here at work.

    Back in Ruth’s day, the fastest fastball on record was 43.2 mph.

    They had to run the bases uphill in the snow.

    They didn’t have fancy video to scout the other teams, so they had to use their imaginations.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  4. Nate

    @ Mucker:

    I know in similar arguments I usually reference the change in the player pool over the years. Meaning Ruth only played against the best white, American players in his day. Now it’s the best players in the world regardless of race, nationality, etc. The game is not played the same way it was 75 years ago, what with the big change in bullpen use, etc. I don’t know if that means the talent level has changed, but its a somewhat different game.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  5. Mucker

    @ Nate:
    That’s basically my argument to him as well. And if pitchers back then threw 88 mph fastballs and couldn’t locate breaking pitches, then it’s easier to understand how some guys back then (Ruth, Gehrig, Foxx) were able to dominate the way they did. But if pitchers threw hard and had really good breaking/offspeed pitches, then it’s amazing how good those guys actually were then. If that makes sense.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  6. Rizzo the Rat

    @ Mucker:
    Well, Barry Bonds was approximately as dominant as Ruth. Pitchers are bigger than they used to be and therefore probably throw harder. Sliders, curves and knuckleballs were all in use (spitballs were outlawed in 1920, but since when do players follow the rules?) but I don’t know what the proportions were–I highly doubt logs exist. There also were fewer relievers back then, and the short reliever who throws really fast didn’t exist (most starters finished their games as it took fewer pitches to do so back then). James and Neyer did a historical study of pitchers and pitching (which I haven’t read, but looks good): http://www.amazon.com/The-Neyer-James-Guide-Pitchers/dp/0743261585

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  7. Rizzo the Rat

    @ Berselius:
    I don’t know. There were fewer pitches per at-bat. Tango estimated that historically pitchers tended to average 100 per start (though it varied widely between starts) with the exception of the 1970’s when pitchers like Nolan Ryan kept pitching until their arms turned into jelly.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  8. GW

    The curveball has been around forever. There were also lots of pitches that were just not as standardized and well known. My guess is that pre- 1920s breaking balls were much better than they are today, given the baseballs that were used at the time.

    There were a few big changes that led to the offensive explosion of the ’20s: juicing the ball, outlawing of the spitball/emery ball, much more ball replacement during games, ballparks got smaller, homers that left the park in fair territory but landed foul were counted… In addition, Bill James argues that prior to Babe Ruth, players didn’t try to hit homers. Instead they were taught that swinging for the fences was on the whole conterproductive.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  9. Mucker

    I did read that back in the pre-Ruth days, players were more about speed than power. Lots of bunts, steals, etc. Ballparks were so big too that triples were more prominent than homers back then. Ruth came in and completely changed the way hitters hit.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  10. Rizzo the Rat

    @ Mucker:
    Yes. For some players, if there was a man on first and no outs, a sac bunt was so automatic, the manager didn’t signal for it.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  11. GW

    Rizzo the Rat wrote:

    spitballs were outlawed in 1920, but since when do players follow the rules?

    some pitchers were grandfathered in to the new rules. the frequent in-game replacement of balls likely made a huge difference, though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  12. dmick89

    @ Mucker:
    I’d ask your friend to explain how the talent level has increased in everything else, but not baseball. That seems illogical to me. What makes baseball different from the other sports?

    There is no doubt that the talent level has increased.

    If your friend means that we don’t notice it in the stats, that is because pitching, defense and hitting have all gotten better.

    Ruth, as RTR said, is comparable to Bonds. I have no doubt that if you could somehow put a 1920s Babe Ruth and a recent Barry Bonds on the same field at the same time that Bonds would be so significantly better that few people would even pay attention to Ruth. The difference in their talent levels would be enormous. I also have no doubt that you could do the same for many, many other players and they’d all be better than Ruth.

    What makes Ruth and Bonds comparable is when you compare them to the era in which they played, which is the right way to do so. When you do, the two are equal.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  13. Rizzo the Rat

    Stolen bases went down a lot after 1920; sacrifice hits remained high throughout the decade as managers were apparently slow to adopt.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  14. Rizzo the Rat

    One thing I find fascinating about the live-ball era (approx. 1920-1940) is how high the scoring was despite (by modern standards) a low home run rate. The home run rate in the 1920’s was about 1/3 of what it is now, but run scoring is close to what it was in the “steroid era.” The main reason is the very low strikeout rate, which I think is good evidence of pitchers being less skilled than they are now.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  15. Mucker

    @ dmick89:
    I think his point was that in football and basketball, players are so much better today then they were back in the day. He seems to think that in baseball, players are just as good between the different eras. He thinks that Ruth, Gehrig, Williams, while not as dominant as they were, would still be very good in todays MLB. I think his argument is more that in baseball, the game hasn’t changed as much as in football and basketball.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  16. dmick89

    @ Mucker:
    The past greats in other sports, given all the advantages that around today, would still be very good to great. I think talent level is completely different than whether or not the game itself has changed. As Bill James has said, baseball prior to the 1900s wouldn’t even be recognizable.

    Is your friend a baseball fan?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  17. Mucker

    @ dmick89:
    Yeah, he’s a huge baseball fan. He’s not an advanced stat guy but he doesn’t downplay those stats either. I think he’s saying that if you take Ruth, Williams, etc out of their eras, with the same talent they had back then and put them in today’s MLB, they would still be very good. But if you take Red Grange, Jim Thorpe out of their eras, with the same talent they had in the 20s and 30s, and put them in today’s NFL, they wouldn’t even make a team. Same with basketball. I think he’s wrong, but it’s interesting to hear everybody’s opinion on that.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  18. Mucker

    Let me clarify, that I think he’s wrong about baseball. I’m of the mindset that in every sport ever created, players are hundreds of times better today than they were 80 years ago.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  19. Rizzo the Rat

    dmick89 wrote:

    The past greats in other sports, given all the advantages that around today, would still be very good to great.

    Eh, I’m skeptical. At the very least, there’s the past/present size differential (this applies to baseball as well as other sports). Walter Johnson, listed at 6-1 was considered very big for his day; now he’d be below average, at least in the height department. This might be worse in other sports where size is even more important (basketball, football).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  20. Akabari

    @ Mucker:
    At least from people I know that have made this argument to me (and to be fair, I’m friends with a lot of bros (dying laughing)), a lot of times when people make this argument to me, it isn’t so much about the talent level, its the evolution of the athlete, so to speak.
    If you compare the physiques of NFL Payers even in the 70s to those of today, you can SEE how much bigger, faster and stronger the average player is. As the game became more physical, the players have exploded too. In the NBA, while players haven’t become so much more muscular than before, the players have obviously become much taller, more athletic.
    Baseball though, to the average person that *I* talk to that makes this argument, doesn’t seem so. The fact that Prince Fielder and Miguel Cabrera can have noticeable guts, CC Sabathia…etc. And other guys can be so visibly out of shape and still dominate is usually where the argument boils down. The only sport where you have enough time to eat seeds or chew tobacco in between plays. If you look at it on the surface level, compared to other sports, thats usually where the argument has come from, in my opinion. That the sport is “soft”

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  21. Berselius

    If you look at specific aspects of baseball, I think the players are just as good as they are today. Players’ hit tool, for one, defense and throwing probably too, though to a slightly lesser extent (not as fast).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  22. GW

    Mucker wrote:

    I think he’s saying that if you take Ruth, Williams, etc out of their eras, with the same talent they had back then and put them in today’s MLB, they would still be very good. But if you take Red Grange, Jim Thorpe out of their eras, with the same talent they had in the 20s and 30s, and put them in today’s NFL, they wouldn’t even make a team.

    I think he has a point. Basketball and football are more dependent on size/speed than baseball. Baseball is much more hand/eye coordination, at least on offense. I’m skeptical that hand/eye has improved as much as size/speed, even given the increased population.

    I agree with RTR that pitcher size has changed a ton and older-generation pitchers would struggle to make a roster. Hitters have Newton’s third law working in their favor, though.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  23. Mucker

    @ GW:
    It’s an interesting argument. And yes, he does have a point regarding basketball and football. But I think that players today, even players like Koyie Hill ((dying laughing)) would be much better if you put them in the 20s era. The great players (Bonds, Pujols, Cabrera, etc.) would destroy back in those days. I don’t think the players back then, would be as good in today’s game as the players today would be in the 20s era.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  24. Rizzo the Rat

    GW wrote:

    I’m skeptical that hand/eye has improved as much as size/speed, even given the increased population.

    I think that may be why stikeouts have been increasing steadily over the history of the MLB. Pitchers have gotten bigger and stronger, but hitters haven’t gotten better at making contact (though they’ve improved at hitting the ball a long way). By 2100, expect every at-bat to end with either a strikeout or a home run.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  25. GW

    @ Mucker:

    I’m not so sure about that, either. My guess is that the game was more heterogeneous back then, specifically in terms of the called strike zone. I think today’s greats are generally strike-zone specialists that wait for their pitch and swing very hard. Players back then were probably more adaptable in that respect.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  26. Mucker

    @ GW:
    Great point. I think players strike out more today then they used to back then and I’m curious what the reason for that is? Is it what you just said? Is it that pitchers are so much better at strking out hitters today? Probably a little of both?

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  27. josh

    @ GW:
    I don’t see how pitching can improve without hitting improving to match it. I would guess defense is also significantly better. There are tons of muscles at play in hitting. Bat speed is crucial to generating velocity and catching up to fast pitches.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  28. GW

    Mucker wrote:

    I’m curious what the reason for that is? Is it what you just said? Is it that pitchers are so much better at strking out hitters today? Probably a little of both?

    I don’t think anyone knows precisely, but yeah, i bet that both play a role.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  29. GW

    @ josh:

    well, there’s the fast twitch/slow twitch distinction, which is what eric walker et al have staked their “steroids don’t help” claim on. I think he’s probably wrong at the margins, but has a point in the larger picture.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  30. josh

    @ GW:
    fast-twitch muscle improvement is still improvement. If Bonds is twice as quick off the blocks as Ruth, he’s going to (have a chance, at least to) be better player.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  31. josh

    training regimes are better, there’s more money put into it, better weight training techniques, better understanding of physiology. CC and Fielder aside, most of these guys are finely honed athletes. Maybe that doesn’t translate directly into hitting ability, but it will translate into defense, running, and pitching, which in turn forces hitters to improve.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  32. Rizzo the Rat

    I don’t really buy the forcing to improve argument. Hitters are bigger and stronger today, and therefore hit the ball harder. The hand-eye contact parts are likely harder to improve, so strikeouts have gone up (as pitching has improved).

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  33. Rizzo the Rat

    By themselves, improved fielding and pitching would not “force” hitters to improve; rather, they would decrease the run environment. However, I think increased power, which relates to strength and athleticism, has counteracted any improvements on the defensive side.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  34. Akabari

    @ josh:
    It also translate greatly into fatigue down the line. All of this understanding about nutrition/training…etc makes it a lot easier to play 162 games or close to it and still be in very good shape. Stuff that helps greatly that we take for granted like multivitamins and creatine. That has to help keep numbers consistent. Even stuff like reduced travel time which allows for more rest in between series. Less mental and physical fatigue.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  35. Akabari

    @ Rizzo the Rat:
    I think if you look at the game as a whole though, its hard to not accept forcing to improve at a macro level. People that could survive on the fringes as replacement or slightly below get pushed out as all aspects of the game improve. As the level of talent at the replacement level increases, the distribution of talent at the valuable level is going to be more concentrated and thus, better. So all aspects of the game would improve as the talent pool should be, well, more talented.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  36. Rizzo the Rat

    Another thing: pitchers started getting the upper hand in the 1960’s, which climaxed in 1968. This lead to rule changes in the hitters’ favor (lowered pitching mound, reduced strike zone). The relative constancy of baseball numbers is somewhat of an externally-induced homeostasis; if numbers start to get too crazy, they change the rules to balance them out.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  37. Rizzo the Rat

    Note: ” externally-induced homeostasis” is easily the most pretentious thing I’ve ever written.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  38. dmick89

    Just a head up to everyone. I’m doing some shit behind the scenes to improve security of the site. Some of it you will notice, most of you won’t, but I wanted to let you know that I’m creating a blacklist and it’s possible (not likely at all) that a normal user could be affected. If so, email me and it will be fixed.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  39. Rizzo the Rat

    @ Akabari:
    Hitters are constantly in competition with other hitters (for their jobs). An improvement in pitching will cause their numbers to go down, but won’t change how good they are relative to other hitters.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  40. dmick899

    The authors here changed passwords today and I added a limit login plugin. I was the first dumbass who got locked out of the site. Unreal

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  41. WaLi

    Navarro got very badly hurt from play at the plate. Taken out on cartbulance.

    It was sad, but couldn’t hold back my laugh when they couldn’t pick him up.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0
  42. Recalcitrant Blogger Nate

    I saw a Murphy homer live and in person last night. Something I’ll tell my grandchildren about.

      Quote  Reply

    0

    0

Leave a Comment