A month in baseball is still a small sample but it's still worth discussing as it can have an impact on a player's perceived stock. A player could be showing signs of improvement in that key area where he's been lacking. A player could be utterly failing at a new level/position.So, my question is. Who has raised their stock the most in your eyes and who's stock has fallen?
For the most raised stock (which I'm pleased to say was a tough decision with no fewer than a half dozen excellent candidates), it's tempting to go with Tucker, but I think he was already believed to be a solid bet to make the Majors at some point, so I don't know if his stock has truly skyrocketed. A lot of other guys were already well-regarded and have simply lived up to their hoped potential. My mind continues to be drawn to Jacob Nottingham, despite his bare numbers paling compared to a few others. But in my eyes, he might be the most unexpected. He was a major, major project when drafted (read; all tools, little polish) and, so far, he's shown tremendous improvement in basically every area of the game. It's not quite on the level of Brett Phillips' last year because he's not dominating like Phillips did, but it's in that neighborhood.
On the flip side, A.J. Reed has been my biggest disappointment so far. It's not as if he's even stinking or something, but he's whiffing a lot against A-ball hitters, and his OPS is merely okay considering that he's playing in the California League. I fully expected him to rake out of the gate and force his way to AA by mid-season; that looks like a distant dream at this point (though it's not too late).
Hands down, Preston Tucker's stock is not just been helium high, but hydrogen high. He was a name that was rarely mentioned in game threads, but I think the "call Tucker up" cries are just as numerous as the "Carter struck out again" cries. I have always like Tucker, and I think his bat will play one day. However, I am worried about him being Brett Wallace 2.0. Lots of similarities between those two guys..296/.362/.488, 21.9 K%, 9.5% BB.303/.370/.482, 22.2 K%, 7.8% BBThose are Preston Tucker and Brett Wallace's career numbers respectively in AAA. Both are "bad baseball bodies," both played D1 baseball at big time programs, and both were drafted by Luhnow. I know I am using one guy that failed in my comparison which is unfair to Preston, but I can't help but notice the similarities.
I think you are right in the similarities but honestly I think Brett Wallace was all mental, he had the tools necessary to do the job.If we don't jerk Tucker around the same way we did Wallace he might be the player we hoped Wallace would be or better.
I remember hearing a lot about some hole in Wallace's swing back when we first got him. Don't know how accurate that was or if Tucker has a similar concern.
Think there were 2 holes, head and swing. I heard the rumor as well.
There have been grumblings about Tucker having bat speed issues.
Bingo. That's the big knock on Tucker. Will the slower bat be able to stand up to more consistent elite velocity? Will it allow for him to hold back consistently enough to not be too far in front of off-speed pitches.
Why would less bat speed make it harder to hold back a swing? I mean, that seems kind of anti-physics.
My wording may be off. It's not a hold back that it's directly affecting. It's that with the slower bat speed he has less time to read and react. With elite breaking balls you need a longer time to read and react. But his window is more limited due to his swing taking longer.
Ironic that the conversation went directly into Preston Tucker who ended up getting called up later on in the week after this conversation was made.
Obviously his stock was up enough to get that call up.