Young Players and Standards

by frustratedfan on Apr 21, 2007 12:58 PM CDT

A number of people have been commenting most recently on the worthlessness of the Cub young players such as Matt Murton and Ronnie Cedeno. The comments, particularly those directed at Murton, to my mind, seem ill chosen because they represent an unrealistic set of expectations for a good major league player at an early stage of their career. So I ask these folk the following question:

Exactly what standards would a young player have to meet in order for the young player to be considered anything other than a failure. I don't want "creepy eye" answers (ie the player has to "look" like a player because such answers are of no value. I want an objective test - such as hit .375 with a slugging percentage of .650 (which would appear to be the Dusty Baker minimum test)

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

Tweet Comment 29 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

i agree w/ you

murton far exceeds my minimum requirement to be an everyday starter!

So we're stuck in a slump, it's only been a century...

by Old Style Heavy on Apr 21, 2007 1:25 PM CDT reply actions

Performance

like beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Just as you have mentioned numerous times, the kids are at a stage of their career. And that stage often compares favorably with respected veterans at earlier stages.

Add to that the general acceptance of veterans as having paid their dues. So mistakes from a veteran are often accepted while the same error by a youngster is proof he isn't worthy of being in the majors.

The past two days we've heaped tons of scorn on Cedeno and Murton when neither was primarily responsible for the loss.

I went back and looked at the discussion of Hill last year and it generally was a 50-50 breakdown of ship him to Siberia or he'll be OK in time. Imagine if we had bailed on him last year?

So, in summary, there is no generally accepted test for measuring youngsters. Sometimes the debate itself is worth the price of admission to the club.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Apr 21, 2007 1:52 PM CDT reply actions

that's because

Cedeno is indeed worthless.

Faith Plus One - Contributing Editor -http://www.inaleagueofherown.com

by Faith plus 1 on Apr 21, 2007 1:56 PM CDT reply actions

different answers depending on position

for cedeno, if he can play good defense, i'd take him hitting .260 or so, with an obp of .350 or so. i'm not looking for much out of him. and i'm not really that upset by the slide yesterday. bad slide, bad time for it. but it's not like it doesn't happen.

murton is a little different because he's a corner outfielder. so i expect more offense out of him. i would definitely take his stats from last year. but i'm underwhelmed with what i've seen of him this year. he's not taking pitches like he used to, and he's not going opposite field. he doesn't have enough power to be useful if he's not gonna hit around .290, or get on base at a .400 clip. those are high standards, but that's what comes with corner outfielders i think.

by billywan on Apr 21, 2007 2:03 PM CDT reply actions

interesting...

So a corner outfielder who makes less than $400K a year must have a .400 OBP or so for it to be worth our while. Yet you are fine with our other corner outfielder (Soriano) being paid an average of $17M per year and having an career OBP of about .335.

Not to mention Murton's only like 26, w/ years to improve, whereas Soriano's 31, an age where players traditionally have peaked. Therefore, Murton's numbers will actually go up, yet Soriano's will go down.

Oh, and don't expect Murton to even match his numbers when Piniella doesn't give him enough AB's. IF Piniella gives him more AB's, Murton's #'s will definitely exceed last year's.

So we're stuck in a slump, it's only been a century...

by Old Style Heavy on Apr 21, 2007 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions

ok, maybe .400 is a bit high

but the comparison to soriano isn't useful because soriano hits for power. as i said, if murton won't hit for power, he needs higher average and obp, i think.

i'm not saying move him. and the fact that he's so cheap means he's more likely to stick around for a bit. but if we could upgrade with a trade, i'd be more than happy to sit murton.

by billywan on Apr 21, 2007 3:11 PM CDT up reply actions

I know this is directed at me

and I'm not going to waste my time dragging out all the stats that most people here ignore anyway. I've done that many times and the Murton-lovers turn a blind eye.

Cedeno is worthless and that's all there is to it. You needn't look any further than his minor league numbers to see that.

Murton is not worthless and I never said he was. I said he's a marginal left fielder and marginal means he has some value. He's not ever going to be a great left fielder. Yes, his defense is better than some suggest it is. He has more speed than people give him credit for yet it doesn't really show up very much (not scoring from 3rd on two different plays would be a great example here). Last year he was ranked, by VORP, as the 17th best left fielder (400 or more plate appearances if I recall correctly) out of 29 or 30 left fielders. Among 2006 left fielders with 350 or more plate appearances, he ranked 20th out of 32 in VORPr.

He's not a player who is going to improve much. He's an extreme groundball hitter and these players tend to decline more rapidly than they improve...even at a young age. As a result, it's unlikely he ever hits for much power (in 2006 he was 19th in slugging). His on-base skills, as his speed deteriorates, will decline somewhat (despite all the love for his on-base skills, he ranked 10th in obp among left fielders with 350 or more plate appearances).

I could go through almost any other stat and we'd see that Murton, overall, is a below average left fielder. Maybe that's good enough for you. But that is the precise definition of marginal. He has some value, but NONE as a starting outfielder.

You can compare him to vets all you want, but until you begin to compare him to players with similar skills, it's meaningless. His top 20 comparables according to BP are Rondell White, Rick Reichardt, Chad Allen, Alex Ochoa, Luis Matos, Aaron Rowand, Gil Flores, Gabe Kapler, Bernie Williams, Mark Whiten, Bob Watson, Dmitri Young, Carlos May, Ken Berry, Mike Darr, Hal Morris, Lee Walls, Glenn Braggs, Tony Horton, and Glenn Wilson.

Not exactly a bunch of studs among those players, are there? He's a marginal left fielder. IT's really that simple. You're free to believe otherwise and ignore all the stats that are available to you if you wish, but it doesn't make him better than slightly below average.

As a cheap outfielder, he's just fine. When he reaches his 2nd and 3rd year of arbitration, however, see ya Matt!

by Maddog on Apr 21, 2007 6:18 PM CDT reply actions

Do you read BP?

Or do you just skim it? Murton's PECOTA-projected SuperVORP for the year is 27 -- 20 being league average. Nate Silver, the guy who does all the projections at BP, says Murton should be the Cubs right fielder of the future.

Ok, so first of all, you're not cuing in on the definition of average here. Your definition of marginal sucks, too. League-average ballplayers have value. PECOTA seems to think he's worth 9 million dollars a year over the next five years. Unless you know something about Murton's arbitration hearings that I don't, he looks to be insanely valuable over that time period.

by cwyers on Apr 21, 2007 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh, and as for Cedeno...

...he doesn't have a lot of value. Which would be an arguement against him if he was playing on a staff that had Alex Rodriguez. Or Derek Jeter. Or even David Freakin' Eckstein. But we have CESAR THE WONDER OUT! You could look it up.

by cwyers on Apr 21, 2007 7:20 PM CDT up reply actions

You're talking

about computer based projections, which are a valuable tool indeed, but they're far from perfect.

His 5-year projected VORP is 76...about 15 per season, which is below the average left fielder.

You've misinterpreted any definitions because I've never given any. A marginal player does have value as I stated. I've never said Murton doesn't have value, but he's below average and will always be below average in outfield production. If he played 2nd base or shortstop, maybe he'd be league average, but that's not going to happen.

I said all this stuff last year and people here were telling me no way and that I wasn't giving him his due credit. Well, at the end of the season, he sat right where I expected him to (slightly below average). I see it's the same thing this year and I'm not going to bother with it. Matt Murton is a marginal player. It's a fact. PErhaps a sad fact considering where we are, but a fact nonetheless.

by Maddog on Apr 22, 2007 12:38 AM CDT up reply actions

Apples and oranges

You're comparing a rookie's stats with seasoned veterans. Players do improve with experience. Sandberg and Lee, among many others, had unremarkable beginnings and outstanding careers.

That's not to say Murton will become comparable to them, but his stats at their age compare him favorably with Gibson and Abreu.

By your standards, most every rookie would be labeled marginal. My bet is Murton will end up being a much more powerful batter as he matures. Hopefully those years will be in a Cubs uniform.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Apr 21, 2007 8:12 PM CDT up reply actions

No

I compared Murtons 2006 stats to other left fielders in 2006. He was below average. Extreme groundball hitters like Murton don't suddenly find a lot of power. Matt Murton is about as good as he's going to get, which isn't as good as most of you here think he is.

That's the last I'm saying on this. I simply don't give a rat's ass what the do with Murton. He's not valuable enough for me to spend much time worry about it.

by Maddog on Apr 22, 2007 12:42 AM CDT up reply actions

As you said

you compared a rookie's numbers with veteran's numbers. If you do that with 99% of all rookies, you'll get the same result.

As long as you want to dismiss others as being fools for not accepting your projections, you're right. It's senseless to try to discuss it further.

Players win awards but teams win championships.

by tharr on Apr 22, 2007 3:29 AM CDT up reply actions

Perhaps

but one has to believe that there is great room for improvement for Murton and I just don't believe there is. His skill set is largely dependent on his speed...yes...his speed. He's a groundball hitter with decent on-base skills. He's 25 years old at this point and the room for improvement is slim. The bottom line is that players with his skill set don't improve all that much if at all. I think he's much more likely to show a decline over the next 3-5 seasons than he is to improve.

To believe that a rookie needs to be compared differently one must believe that his skill set indicates future progress. Matt Murton's does not.

And you know what? Even if he does improve along the same lines as you'd expect the average hitter to, he's AVERAGE in LF. He'll have below average power to go along with that. He's being moved to RF now. So his relative value drops even further.

by Maddog on Apr 22, 2007 9:57 AM CDT up reply actions

Idiots and Stats

The appopriate comparision is the AGE comprable stats, not the overall comprables. That's comparing Murton's career to date with the total career of the others. But that's not what I am asking, I am asking for "simple" stats, not complex stuff. What Average? What OBP? What slugging percentage. Just a number. Is it .300 (avg), .400 (OBP) .650(SLg)?

Give me a number or shut the F--k up.

by frustratedfan on Apr 21, 2007 8:27 PM CDT up reply actions

What fucking

difference does it make what numbers I think are acceptable? The rate stats you're speaking of tell a short story about the player. The player's value is much beyond those 3 numbers and you're never going to be able to put "acceptable" numbers into simple context like that. So I'm not going to bother.

As I said, you're free to ignore the stats as you are doing. That's your choice. I'm just not going to do that.

by Maddog on Apr 22, 2007 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions

Both of you...

... knock off the profanity, please. You are both valued posters here and there are ways to disagree without using that language.

Thank you.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Apr 22, 2007 5:12 AM CDT up reply actions

This Isn't About Murton

Its about what stats put up by a young player are acceptable. You, and the other overly impatient Cubs fans who don't understand the concept of development, take EVERY young player and rip them apart because they aren't "producing" at an acceptable rate. I am simply asking you to set forth what consititutes an acceptable rate. Is it BA .320, OBP .400 and Slg .650? What is the number? It seems that average (or less) production by a veteran over a small period of time (such as Floyd this season) gets praised to the roof, while less than average production from a young player over a small period of time (such as Murton this year or Theriot for the first week of the season) raises immediate demands that they be traded or benched.

by frustratedfan on Apr 22, 2007 8:34 AM CDT up reply actions

It DEPENDS

on what position they play. A rookie catcher with good defensive skills can live with what would be called below average offensive production. A rookie first baseman with poor defense needs to have better numbers. A rookie left fielder needs to post even better numbers. It's the easiest defensive position on the field. A rookie shortstop needs to have different numbers than a left fielder to be considered acceptable. There is no way to quantify what is acceptable for a rookie. It depends on many things.

Has Murton been acceptable? Of course he has been. I've never said he wasn't. Is acceptable good enough. Of course it's not.

by Maddog on Apr 22, 2007 10:01 AM CDT up reply actions

There's nothing impatient

about being honest about a player's potential. It's called realism.

We know what Matt Murton is capable of at this point. We know what his ceiling is. Yes, he's a positive offensive producer, but compared to league average in left field, he does not and will not ever measure up.

by Maddog on Apr 22, 2007 10:06 AM CDT up reply actions

Realistically...

... you are probably right. But there are other factors in a player's development that can belie what you think his ceiling is.

What would you have said Ryne Sandberg's "ceiling" was after his first two major league seasons? Would you have predicted he'd have a Hall of Fame career, or won a MVP award, or had a 40-HR season?

Not saying Murton will do any of that, but I also think it's too early in his career to say he can't do that.

"That's my opinion and if you don't like it, well, I have others." ~ Groucho Marx

by Al Yellon on Apr 22, 2007 10:15 AM CDT up reply actions

Ceiling?

Why do we "know what his ceiling is"? What is your basis for this claim. As far as I can tell, you are making the ceiling claim based on what he has done to date in the majors. If this is the basis, then I assume you believe that young players don't grow. Of course you realize that, for example, Derek Lee and Cliff Floyd had quite a few seasons at the start of their career which, if you had been judging their talent, would have resulted in the end of their career.

by frustratedfan on Apr 22, 2007 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm glad...

you feel comfortable calling maddog an idiot. This from the man who projected matt murton to do this:

[new] Projection

H 190
D 35
T 3
HR 32
AB 610
BB 80
Avg .311
OBP .391
Slg .536
OPS .927
Steals 23
CS 3

by frustratedfan on Monday, February 26, 2007 at 4:35 PM CT
[ Parent ]

It's hard to argue with a guy whose thought process is so corrupted by intense mancrushes. You also predicted that Hill would go 26-3, and Prior would go 17-4. The fact that your Hill projection STILL looks ridiculous even considering how well he's performed so far is really saying something.

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Apr 22, 2007 4:24 AM CDT up reply actions

Context

As I noted during the projection threads, MY predicitions were, for the most part "too high" or "too low" to try to adjust for the other predictions that were being made. (And I notice that you have been silent as a tomb about my prediction that Soriano would get hurt if he played in CF and thus not put up good numbers. He did get hurt, albeit not as seriously, and is now being moved away from CF to a position where he is less likely to get hurt.

by frustratedfan on Apr 22, 2007 8:36 AM CDT up reply actions

Please!

You took a wild guess that Soriano would get hurt and he did. Trust me, it's not a sign that you know something about baseball that others don't. It's a sign that you took a wild guess and were right.

by Maddog on Apr 22, 2007 10:03 AM CDT up reply actions

"silent as a tomb", eh?

First of all, do I really need to point out that you purposefully weighting your projections to offset the projections of others completely destroys the point of the whole exercise, and screams of gross arrogance and pretention on your part?

My silence regarding your soriano prognostication comes with a simple excuse: I don't commit to notes any of the copious mancrush-inspired, smug-and-whiny polemics that you contribute to this site (those being your only style of posting--as one might expect from one called "frustrated fan"). But this is a silly reason to gloat: pick ANY baseball player, and you can predict correctly a token "day-to-day" injury over the course of a baseball season. I don't see Soriano, on the DL, do you? Let's hear your next prediction, frustrated Nostradamus...will Kerry Wood's robust frame ever break down again???

Baby, you got a stew goin'

by Thelonious on Apr 22, 2007 2:17 PM CDT up reply actions

Use of the term "marginal"

when it comes to Murton simply isn't accurate. In the VORP stats given in your argument above, I don't see a player at the "margins" of the majors--slightly below average in rankings, maybe. Keep the words you present more closely associated to your facts. Had you not gone for the jugular with the "marginal" crack, I might have completely agreed with your assessment of the Stepchild (whose life in the Cubs' outfield appears to be mimicking that nickname).

It doesn't help your argument to use clearly inaccurate hyperbole and it just hacks-off a bunch of so-called man-love Murton fans.

LRRF

"No ballplayer's here because of the Mariners!" ~ Sam Malone

by Littlerock Rynofan on Apr 22, 2007 10:48 AM CDT up reply actions

Cedeno and others

On record as stating that we should not give up on Cedeno, I will start by saying that yes he has much to learn. His .241 last year was most likely in line with many a first year starting SS. So looking at Cedeno for this year it would be nice to see ave of .266 OBP .325 and cutting down on his errors. He has the abiltiy to drive the ball. Which I hope will turn into more doubles or HR.

Marshall comes to mind. To further answer what is acceptable for either rookies or 2nd year players. I thought Marshall had an acceptable year as a rookie. He showed flashes of being a good pitcher. In this case his W-L record and ERA were not that great, but you saw the potential in him. I am holding out hope that yet this year we get to see him pitch with the Cubs.

"Billy was put here for....to teach us to treat each other better"

by wild bill on Apr 22, 2007 6:35 AM CDT reply actions

There is no magic number(s)

You have to consider age, position, history of success and yes there is some subjective aspects to it.

To the Murton question, he is a contributing member of the team but the Cubs do not need to make a spot for him just so he can start everyday. He's not in Pie's class in terms of future upside.

by rlpete on Apr 22, 2007 9:32 AM CDT reply actions