Photo

DJ Stewart


  • Please log in to reply
297 replies to this topic

#81 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 09:39 AM

I'm just not gonna bother checking in on him any longer.  If he turns it around, we'll hear about it. 

 

I like to check in on our top guys from time to time.  Mountcastle has been steadily improving throughout the year and is putting up decent numbes considering his position and age.  Mancini's been pretty good at Norfolk.  Sisco's been solid after a hot start.  All the pitchers seem to be hurt.

 

I just don't think I'll continue with the extra 30 seconds it takes me to visit Stewart's BB-ref page once a month or so.  I'm sure he'll get over the insult.



#82 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,350 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 09:50 AM

They changed his approach at the plate. The crouch he had. They changed him and he's struggling, I'd at least say, "do what makes you comfortable" and see what the result is. Still struggles, then it's a problem. Bounces back, Let him be unorthodox if it works.

Jeff Bagwell had a crouch. No one would ever suggest that a golfer mimick Jim Furyks swing, but it works for him. Peyton Manning had the most active feet in the pocket which you would never teach. But it works for him.

I feel strongly that a lot about hitting is comfort in the box. A lot of success in any sport starts with comfort in what you do. I also feel strongly that wood bats should be standard in college, maybe highschool. It can only make for more accurate scouting.
@BSLMikeRandall

#83 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:14 AM

I thought they didn't change his approach until after he bombed at Aberdeen last year, which I think would satisfy the "still struggles, then it's a problem" condition of your point (which is a completely reasonable approach). 

 

Maybe that wasn't enough of a sample to really prove that the low crouch is a big problem for him professionally, but he definitely hit terribly after signing last year, especially considering he was an advanced college bat known only for his hitting in a short-season league.



#84 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:22 AM

I also feel strongly that wood bats should be standard in college, maybe highschool. It can only make for more accurate scouting.

 

The .50 BBCOR bats aren't particularly different from wood.  Using the same bats would certainly be a truer comparison, but there are non-scouting related reasons to stick with wood, cost being a major one for most colleges and high schools (don't have to replace a bat every time you get jammed). 



#85 BSLMikeRandall

BSLMikeRandall

    Sr. Ravens Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,350 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:39 AM

 
The .50 BBCOR bats aren't particularly different from wood.  Using the same bats would certainly be a truer comparison, but there are non-scouting related reasons to stick with wood, cost being a major one for most colleges and high schools (don't have to replace a bat every time you get jammed). 



I didn't think about the cost aspect. That's a good point. Although a high end Louisville Slugger wood bat runs about $150 whereas a composite, or aluminum counterpart goes for $400.

I know the velocity created off a composite bat in the college game has been a hot topic over the years with respect to liners back at the pitcher.
@BSLMikeRandall

#86 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 10:47 AM

I didn't think about the cost aspect. That's a good point. Although a high end Louisville Slugger wood bat runs about $150 whereas a composite, or aluminum counterpart goes for $400.

I know the velocity created off a composite bat in the college game has been a hot topic over the years with respect to liners back at the pitcher.

 

The metal bats certainly cost more, but they last a whole season or longer.  Wood bats can last a while, or you could break them the first game you use it.

 

Composite bats have been banned since 2009, the problem with them is they meet standards out of the wrapper, but over time the metal starts to deform and actually improves the performance beyond the legal limits.  Think of a slowpitch softball bat needing a "break-in" period.  The new 0.50 BBCOR rule for bats came out in 2011.  I don't think there has been much concern for the exit velocity since then, in fact they've started changing the ball in an attempt to increase scoring after it fell so much once the new rules were implemented.  The new rules mean the bats act almost essentially the same as wooden bats. 

 

http://www.acs.psu.e...NCAA-stats.html


  • BSLMikeRandall likes this

#87 RShack

RShack

    http://tinyurl.com/fake-news-BS

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,483 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 11:37 AM

Were wood bats breaking a big problem before skinny handles?   


 "You say you've lost your faith, but that's not where its at.

  You have no faith to lose, and ya know it" - Bob Dylan


#88 BaltBird 24

BaltBird 24

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,345 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 04:48 PM

Only top pick worse than him we've had since Chris Smith was Hobgood. 

 

Wade Townsend says, "don't forget about me." 


  • Dr. FLK likes this

#89 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 04:52 PM

We at least got compensation for Townsend. I'm not calling him worse than Rowell. Especially since Rowell was yet another Top 10 bust

#90 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 05:10 PM

Townsend didn't sign with us and then got hurt after being redrafted highly by the Rays. Injured guys are different than busts.

Rowell had success initially at least. Then completely fell off.

Stewart's got a lot of time left before making final judgements, but he hasn't done anything positive yet in leagues he should be dominating.

#91 BaltBird 24

BaltBird 24

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,345 posts

Posted 28 June 2016 - 09:25 PM

We at least got compensation for Townsend. I'm not calling him worse than Rowell. Especially since Rowell was yet another Top 10 bust

 

Townsend turned into Garrett Olson who was then dealt for Felix Pie. I guess the Townsend pick wasn't so bad after all. 

 

Smith and Rowell were much worse, though.... wasted top 10 picks. At least Stewart wasn't until the 20s. 



#92 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 29 June 2016 - 08:01 AM

Rowell had a very promising debut as a 17 y/o in Aberdeen and then hit decently as an 18 y/o in Delmarva.  Wasn't until Frederick that he stalled.  So he at least flashed the skills that got him drafted so high.

 

In terms of overall prospect failure, he's definitely near the top over the past 15+ years, but he isn't a pick that makes me question the process that went into drafting him.  Chris Smith and Matt Hobgood are picks that make me question the competence of not just the guys that scouted them, but the scouting directors who decided that reaching for these players was a smart idea.  And Stewart is rapidly approaching that sort of status.

 

You guys are right that Stewart's lower draft position makes him less of a relative bust (if he ends up becoming one).  It's very much a crapshoot even at the top of the draft, but most guys drafted in the later part of the 1st round never make it so it's not a major loss.  I just have a tough time with the rationale that went into drafting him if he never even flashes the skills and talent that you'd expect to see from someone drafted that early.



#93 Moose Milligan

Moose Milligan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,206 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 07:02 AM

Rowell had a very promising debut as a 17 y/o in Aberdeen and then hit decently as an 18 y/o in Delmarva.  Wasn't until Frederick that he stalled.  So he at least flashed the skills that got him drafted so high.

 

In terms of overall prospect failure, he's definitely near the top over the past 15+ years, but he isn't a pick that makes me question the process that went into drafting him.  Chris Smith and Matt Hobgood are picks that make me question the competence of not just the guys that scouted them, but the scouting directors who decided that reaching for these players was a smart idea.  And Stewart is rapidly approaching that sort of status.

 

You guys are right that Stewart's lower draft position makes him less of a relative bust (if he ends up becoming one).  It's very much a crapshoot even at the top of the draft, but most guys drafted in the later part of the 1st round never make it so it's not a major loss.  I just have a tough time with the rationale that went into drafting him if he never even flashes the skills and talent that you'd expect to see from someone drafted that early.

 

Great post.  

 

I buy into the lower draft status more.  I expect a top 10 pick to make good, or at least there's some consensus on a player being chosen that high.  Hobgood wasn't.  Rowell was.  You're right, Rowell did flash some prowess but flamed out.  That kid seemed more immature than anything. 

 

I don't expect anything from the Orioles drafts, honestly.  I mean we picked Machado and Machado is just SO GOOD that not even this organization could fuck him up.  But I just don't get my hopes up anymore until I have a reason to think otherwise.  

 

So DJ Stewart was kind of whatever in my eyes.  That said, I don't understand why anyone changes what made him successful at the college level.  Yeah, the stance is jacked up but he must have liked it for some reason.  Let him try it his way first to see if it works for him.  If it does, great.  If not, then start trying to make some changes.  

 

I'm not saying this is going to be the hitting equivalent of Jake Arrieta but it's the same type of approach that didn't allow him to succeed here but made him successful in Chicago.

 

Oh well, whatever.  Another pick down the tubes.  



#94 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 08:00 AM

That said, I don't understand why anyone changes what made him successful at the college level.  Yeah, the stance is jacked up but he must have liked it for some reason.  Let him try it his way first to see if it works for him.  If it does, great.  If not, then start trying to make some changes.  

 

They did let him keep the crouch to start from everything I've read.  Didn't try to change it until after the miserable failure he had last season.  Fair the question if the ~250 or so PAs last year is enough of a sample with the crouch to decide to abandon it, but given just how bad his numbers were and how advanced he should have been for the level, I'm fine with that decision.



#95 bnickle

bnickle

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 38,177 posts

Posted 30 June 2016 - 05:30 PM

Rowell had a very promising debut as a 17 y/o in Aberdeen and then hit decently as an 18 y/o in Delmarva. Wasn't until Frederick that he stalled. So he at least flashed the skills that got him drafted so high.

In terms of overall prospect failure, he's definitely near the top over the past 15+ years, but he isn't a pick that makes me question the process that went into drafting him. Chris Smith and Matt Hobgood are picks that make me question the competence of not just the guys that scouted them, but the scouting directors who decided that reaching for these players was a smart idea. And Stewart is rapidly approaching that sort of status.

You guys are right that Stewart's lower draft position makes him less of a relative bust (if he ends up becoming one). It's very much a crapshoot even at the top of the draft, but most guys drafted in the later part of the 1st round never make it so it's not a major loss. I just have a tough time with the rationale that went into drafting him if he never even flashes the skills and talent that you'd expect to see from someone drafted that early.

I don't really question the process when it comes to Stewart at 25. The O's wanted an advanced college bat. Preferably with hit and OBP tools. You made a post that had him listed Top 15 or 20 going into last spring. By the time the draft hit he had apparently dropped to anywhere from 30-70 on most publications draft boards. The O's may have just believed it was a down year and thought the bat was still elite. It looks like a miss but it's not, and has never been, a head scratching move like Hobgood or Smith.

#96 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 41,318 posts

Posted 01 July 2016 - 08:02 AM

You made a post that had him listed Top 15 or 20 going into last spring. By the time the draft hit he had apparently dropped to anywhere from 30-70 on most publications draft boards. The O's may have just believed it was a down year and thought the bat was still elite. It looks like a miss but it's not, and has never been, a head scratching move like Hobgood or Smith.

 

It could become head-scratching if a college position player known and projected solely for his prowess with the bat never hits even at very low levels full of younger players than him.  If that ends up being the case, I think you'd have to ask some questions about all the scouts that viewed him and were unable to find whatever holes there are in his game that college pitchers seemingly couldn't exploit but A- guys could.

 

His struggles don't necessarily mean something is broken with the mechanism, but for a process that already had a lot of question marks, it certainly isn't a good look.

 

Hopefully he can flip the switch and become a prospect, he's still only about a year out from the draft, so plenty of time left for him to overcome the awful beginning to his professional career.



#97 dude

dude

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,507 posts
  • LocationColumbus, GA

Posted 01 July 2016 - 12:52 PM

Hopefully he can flip the switch and become a prospect, he's still only about a year out from the draft, so plenty of time left for him to overcome the awful beginning to his professional career.

 

There were certainly questions about whether his approach would translate, but I have no issues drafting his tool set to find out.  

 

This is sort of the worst case scenario with him....his crouch didn't work, they change things, who knows....you could be dealing with transition and confidence issues now.....he's certainly feeling some pressure to produce.

 

You'd hope he'd show up and rake and you put him on a 2+ year path to LF.....I'm not even sure he's on the path right now so he needs to get comfortable, forget everything else and get back to being the guy that had scouts interested.  

 

We're going to have to wait this out a little more than anyone wanted.



#98 jkough1

jkough1

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,442 posts

Posted 12 July 2016 - 07:12 AM

Stewart has a 903 OPS with a 298/412/491 slash. With 5 doubles and 2 homers in Frederick. Nice to see a hot 16 game stretch from him at least. 


  • BSLChrisStoner likes this

#99 BSLChrisStoner

BSLChrisStoner

    Owner

  • Administrators
  • 112,561 posts

Posted 12 July 2016 - 07:36 AM

Stewart has a 903 OPS with a 298/412/491 slash. With 5 doubles and 2 homers in Frederick. Nice to see a hot 16 game stretch from him at least. 


Better than the alternative. If he can sustain that through the rest of the season, will feel better about him going into the off-season.



#100 BSLRobShields

BSLRobShields

    BSL Analyst

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 84,034 posts
  • LocationBaltimore

Posted 12 July 2016 - 08:35 AM

Stewart has a 903 OPS with a 298/412/491 slash. With 5 doubles and 2 homers in Frederick. Nice to see a hot 16 game stretch from him at least.


Not that I expect it to happen but you do wonder the mindset of some guys when they are playing against guys who are much younger than they are...if they feel "superior" to them and take things lightly.

I think that would be poor if true but doesn't mean that someone with a big ego wouldn't feel this way, get into some bad habits and then struggle.

Perhaps moving him up changed his mindset?

Again, I doubt this is the case but it's something worth paying attention to.


@BSLRobShields




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Partners