Article: Hicks Shaping Up As Bruno Success Story?

[IdahoPilgrim]

I think his plate discipline has definitely improved, but it hasn't translated into success - yet. The next few weeks will be interesting. Now that he's not hacking at stuff in the dirt, pitchers will start changing there approach. We'll see if Hicks is able to adjust to their adjustments.

[Guest USAFChief]

The PAs over the past 4 games have a little something for everyone: for those seeking encouragement, he definitely has shown flashes of the plate discipline that was always a strength throughout his minor league career. For those convinced he needs to go back to the minor leagues, there has been precious little solid contact when he does swing. My take: there's not enough information yet to believe in either case. As I said week 1, let's reassess around June 1, and see where he's at.

[Pius Jefferson]

Still skeptical. Walks are great, more a sign that pitchers can't throw strikes than anything he did. He hasn't even made good contact for a long time. I don't get why pitchers aren't just pounding the zone and making him beat them with a hit. I still have serious doubts about his ability to put the bat on the ball. Maybe a more patient approach will help... or he'll just get behind in counts and see ****ty pitches to hit.

 

 

Taking pitches can help in the long run. That's assuming he's capable of hitting major league pitching. Agreed with your first point, it looks like the pitchers can't throw strikes.

[Oxtung]

The PAs over the past 4 games have a little something for everyone: for those seeking encouragement, he definitely has shown flashes of the plate discipline that was always a strength throughout his minor league career. For those convinced he needs to go back to the minor leagues, there has been precious little solid contact when he does swing. My take: there's not enough information yet to believe in either case. As I said week 1, let's reassess around June 1, and see where he's at.

 

June 1? I think unless he shows real improvement in the next 2 weeks (when Mastro should be coming back), and I'm talking actually making solid contact and hitting let's say close to .200, then he should be sent back to AAA.

 

It's all well and good to think this is a lost season where there isn't a chance but right now we're 1 game back. Until we are truly out of contention we should be playing to win and starting a player who is hitting .059 is not going to get us to the playoffs. If the Twins fall from contention there will be plenty of time for Hicks to come up and show that his beginning to the season wasn't representative of his real performance levels.

[Alex]

June 1? I think unless he shows real improvement in the next 2 weeks (when Mastro should be coming back), and I'm talking actually making solid contact and hitting let's say close to .200, then he should be sent back to AAA.

 

While I think this article is a bit premature and never thought we should have moved Hicks up, for him to be hitting close to .200 by the end of two weeks, he would need to hit around .500. I'd settle for him putting up decent numbers (like he put up in AA) to keep the experiment going.

[StormJH1]

I don't understand devaluing the walk. It means much more than just avoiding an out (which, in itself, is incredibly valuable). It shows the ability to lay off bad pitches. It wears down the opposing pitcher. It shows a consistent approach to ABs. It shows that the player has a goal and is going to make the pitcher work to get him out.

 

Over 75 PAs, I'll take the young guy who is hitting .100 with a 15% walk rate every time over the young guy with a .400 BABIP and a 3% walk rate. One of those guys is going to start trending upward and the other is inevitably going to trend downward.

 

Hicks is starting to show meaningful improvements. It hasn't shown up in the stat line but if he continues down this path, he WILL be a productive major league hitter sooner rather than later.

 

All of that may be true, and we've seen at least SOME evidence that Hicks can swing a confident bat in the minors.

 

But "taking a lot walks" is not, in and of itself, a useful or reliable skill. That Aaron Hicks has been walked 9 times in 60 plate appearances is better than if he were just flailing away up there. But it's also an extremely small sample size, and it results from the fact that this guy is terrified to swing the bat. Occasionally, pitchers will have control issues and walk guys they don't want to walk. You see pitchers get walked in the NL once in awhile. But by and large, if they aren't afraid of you as a hitter, MLB pitchers will get after you.

 

Simply put, there is no way you can dress up Hicks' performance thus far as anything as a complete disaster. He has 9 walks, but only 3 hits. If he were swinging enough to have more hits, he would have even more than the 21 strikeouts he has (which is a pace of about 205 per season, for a LEADOFF hitter).

 

His batter's eye does look pretty good. But the walks don't excite me at all because being selective at the plate and working deep into counts is only useful if you have a good contact rate also. The "gestalt" of his "selective" approach is still a .259 OPS. Still early, but just saying...

[jimbo92107]

I was watching some kids swing bats in the cages at Nevers/Larkin in Eden Prairie a couple days ago, and I saw something familiar. One of the kids couldn't seem to reach the ball with his bat, even though he was stepping in and turning his shoulders pretty well. What he was doing wrong was in his hips.

 

People talk about "keep your weight back," but sometimes they forget to mention that you still have to shift your body forward into the swing. The difference between the two is kinetic. The weight-back observation is really referring to the posture you try to maintain through the swing, which is to stay centered over a strong base in your legs. However, at the same time you must generate power off the back foot, which requires driving forward off that foot, then turning your hips.

 

Problem in the hip turn arise if the center of rotation of your hips shifts to the wrong place. As you move your lower body forward, you must ensure that the center of rotation of your hips is over your front leg. If the center of rotation drifts to your middle (belly button) or your rear hip, then something awkward happens. The rotation looks okay, but your torso moves away from the plate. This is what I call "doing the French Mistake," a reference to an hilarious dance number in Blazing Saddles. If it looks like you're pushing your butt away from the plate, then all the energy of your swing goes away, and you also lose the ability to reach any pitch from the middle of the plate outwards.

 

In a healthy, powerful swing, the rear hip comes through after the bat whips around. In fact, your rear foot may actually come forward to the inside of the plate, even with your front foot. Just like a throw. After all, you're supposed to throw the end of the bat at the ball. Anyway, Aaron Hicks has been doing a bit of a French Mistake on his swing. He's keeping his weight back, but he's not shifting his mass forward, and he's not really following through with the rear half of his body.

[TheLeviathan]

Um..."the last week" has been all of three games for the kid. I'm a bit disturbed that people are ignoring sample size. It was right to cite sample size when he was struggling but to ignore it after a few games of a better approach is a tad silly. Look, I'm optimistic on Hicks but there is a lot of talk in this thread that seems inconsistent in perspective.

[Riverbrian]

I was watching some kids swing bats in the cages at Nevers/Larkin in Eden Prairie a couple days ago, and I saw something familiar. One of the kids couldn't seem to reach the ball with his bat, even though he was stepping in and turning his shoulders pretty well. What he was doing wrong was in his hips.

 

People talk about "keep your weight back," but sometimes they forget to mention that you still have to shift your body forward into the swing. The difference between the two is kinetic. The weight-back observation is really referring to the posture you try to maintain through the swing, which is to stay centered over a strong base in your legs. However, at the same time you must generate power off the back foot, which requires driving forward off that foot, then turning your hips.

 

Problem in the hip turn arise if the center of rotation of your hips shifts to the wrong place. As you move your lower body forward, you must ensure that the center of rotation of your hips is over your front leg. If the center of rotation drifts to your middle (belly button) or your rear hip, then something awkward happens. The rotation looks okay, but your torso moves away from the plate. This is what I call "doing the French Mistake," a reference to an hilarious dance number in Blazing Saddles. If it looks like you're pushing your butt away from the plate, then all the energy of your swing goes away, and you also lose the ability to reach any pitch from the middle of the plate outwards.

 

In a healthy, powerful swing, the rear hip comes through after the bat whips around. In fact, your rear foot may actually come forward to the inside of the plate, even with your front foot. Just like a throw. After all, you're supposed to throw the end of the bat at the ball. Anyway, Aaron Hicks has been doing a bit of a French Mistake on his swing. He's keeping his weight back, but he's not shifting his mass forward, and he's not really following through with the rear half of his body.

 

I'm seeing a difference between left side and right side. Do you see it with Hicks as well?

 

From the right side his swing looks fairly smooth and together. From the left side I see him falling back instead of shifting his weight. His plate coverage and power seems effected by this.

[jokin]

Um..."the last week" has been all of three games for the kid. I'm a bit disturbed that people are ignoring sample size. It was right to cite sample size when he was struggling but to ignore it after a few games of a better approach is a tad silly. Look, I'm optimistic on Hicks but there is a lot of talk in this thread that seems inconsistent in perspective.

 

This....Axes can't grind themselves...

[jokin]

I'm seeing a difference between left side and right side. Do you see it with Hicks as well?

 

From the right side his swing looks fairly smooth and together. From the left side I see him falling back instead of shifting his weight. His plate coverage and power seems effected by this.

 

I'm tempted to ask: What plate coverage? and What power? seems affected?

 

He has 3 singles RH and O LH. He has struck out 18 times in 48 PAs RH (37.5%) and has struck out 3 times in 12 PAs LH (25%).

[TheLeviathan]

This....Axes can't grind themselves...

 

I don't think Nick is grinding an axe - I just think there were two excellent points to make (Bruno's career comp to Hicks and a breakdown of his last 10 ABs) and this article unfortunately doesn't do a good job of either. It comes off exactly how others like kab have interpreted it. My impression before I hit the comments was that this was far too soon declaring "corner turned!"

[Riverbrian]

I'm tempted to ask: What plate coverage? and What power? seems affected?

 

He has 3 singles RH and O LH. He has struck out 18 times in 48 PAs RH (37.5%) and has struck out 3 times in 12 PAs LH (25%).

 

Sir Jokin... You have that backwards... 12 PA's batting right handed... 48 PA's batting left handed.

 

And... I'm not looking at his splits... I'm watching him hit... I think he will have a hard time generating power batting left handed from what I'm seeing and trouble reaching outside or low pitches without diving at it.

 

It looks like he can drive it from the right side. I have no idea if this is something he is just doing now or if its been with him throughout his career.

 

12 at bats from the right side is tough to draw any conclusions... Just what it looks like to me and I'm not an expert... Just youth coaching experience.

 

His swing looks flawed from the left... and not so much flawed from the right in only 12 bats...

 

i'm sure Bruno is working hard to get him squared away and I could be completely wrong.

[Brad Swanson]

Anyone stating that the walks aren't at least somewhat encouraging has already made their mind up about Hicks. If the book on Hicks is to pump him fastballs and let him get himself out, then why haven't pitchers done that recently? If anything the book is to throw fastballs early in the count to get ahead and then put him away with breaking balls. Hicks has done a better job laying off some of those breaking balls, and thus has drawn more walks. Drawing more walks will lead to more hitable pitches and hopefully better contact.

 

The only way to change the book on Hicks is to let him work through these issues. I agree with Chief, let's assess on June 1. It isn't only the increased walks but decreased strikeouts. He has only 5 Ks to 9 BBs in his last six games. He has also scored six runs during that stretch.

 

Anyone stating anything about his confidence level is purely speculating. You aren't in his head.

[ashbury]

Instead of "shaping up", as if the progress was already demonstrable, maybe it's "setting up" as a Bruno success story, for when it happens. No talented player will maintain such a low batting average; the Pioneer Press writer could be getting out front so that when a regression to mean occurs he can write a feel-good story about Bruno coming through. And if Hicks doesn't improve, well, what was poor Bruno supposed to do anyway.

 

Pretty much everyone here seems to agree the past three games are too small a sample size, but in that small sample it does look like Hicks has addressed at least part of the problem, and pitchers will have to adjust to him being not quite the easy out he had been earlier. Getting on base just under half the time, and using that to come around and score 3 times in 3 games, is welcome compared to having nothing at all to build upon.

[Oxtung]

While I think this article is a bit premature and never thought we should have moved Hicks up, for him to be hitting close to .200 by the end of two weeks, he would need to hit around .500. I'd settle for him putting up decent numbers (like he put up in AA) to keep the experiment going.

 

That was poorly worded sorry. I mean that over the next two weeks his batting average needs to be >.200, or however long before Mastro is ready, not that his season BA needs to be at .200. Basically he needs to show that he is capable of hitting MLB pitching otherwise he is a black hole this team just can't afford at the beginning of the season.

 

I would say send him down right now but the Twins have nobody to replace him in CF unless they believe Arcia can hack it defensively. Of course Arcia isn't tearing it up in his SSS either. This whole mess falls on the front office for not bringing in someone who can reliably man center field.

[Nick Nelson]

My impression before I hit the comments was that this was far too soon declaring "corner turned!"

"There's been a visible and dramatic improvement in his previously broken plate approach, and if he can keep it up, his slump-busting RBI single will only be the start of a full-fledged turnaround."

 

Pretty amazing that you're able to come away with such a blatant misinterpretation when it's spelled out so clearly right at the end. There were no conclusive statements of any kind made in the column.

 

The season is 15 games old -- everything is a small sample right now. That goes without saying. That doesn't mean we can't analyze trends and share observations. I think K/BB ratio is a pretty important indicator for a hitter, especially for a 23YO rookie whose game is built on plate discipline. For him to go from 20K/3BB in his first 46 PA to 1K/6BB in his most recent 14 is pretty stark, and considering the way it coincided with his drop in the batting order and the quotes about Brunansky, I thought it was worth commenting on.

 

Looks to me like the start of something good. Nothing more. We can debate how meaningful it is that he's taking better at-bats (that was kind of the point of the article) but there's no debating that he's taking better at-bats.

[TheLeviathan]

Pretty amazing that you're able to come away with such a blatant misinterpretation when it's spelled out so clearly right at the end. There were no conclusive statements of any kind made in the column.

 

Nick - multiple people are reading the same thing out of your post. You can keep shouting about how clear you think you were, but I'm suggesting your point was nowhere near as clear as you think it was. From the article title and on - it just wasn't. That isn't misrepresenting you.

 

You use Dickbert lingo like "slump busting single" - except all three of his hits this season have been that and it hasn't busted him out of anything. In this thread you talk about the "last week" of games - which is a grand total of 13 at-bats. You have talked about a "dramatic" improvement in his approach in that meager of a sample size. You claim he's walking into the box with "more confidence" - something you can't possibly know unless you've talked to him.

 

I fail to see how there is such a dramatic difference between "turn the corner" and "starting to find his way" that you react this strongly. If there is a problem here, it's with clarity in your post. If you wanted to show how there has been a change in his approach, if that is truly the heart of your post, why do you invest all of one paragraph to it and little, if any, analysis? Most of it is about Bruno as if it is a pre-emptive back-patting for the success you see Hicks continuing to have. (As in....turning the corner!)

 

Hell, this reply of yours has more analysis of what you're now saying was your point. As I mentioned, I think a blog about these last 13 at-bats would be really interesting. This was just confusing, especially with how defensive you've been about very understandably unsure comments in response.

[mako83]

We are winning can we talk about Dozier and Escobar picking us up. I do not know what to think of hicks. If a pitcher has a guy on 2nd and 3rd he is not afraid of any sort of hit or sac fly he is just looking at the next guy.

[jokin]

 

This whole mess falls on the front office for not bringing in someone who can reliably man center field....

 

Bingo...but careful treading here on this subject matter, Ox....statements like these might cause some heart palpitations among some of the faithful- and possibly jeopardize your "real fan" status.

[Nick Nelson]

Hell, this reply of yours has more analysis of what you're now saying was your point. As I mentioned, I think a blog about these last 13 at-bats would be really interesting. This was just confusing, especially with how defensive you've been about very understandably unsure comments in response.

I'm not being defensive. I just feel don't feel like arguing semantics. Why don't you find the things within the post that resonate with you (as you said, the Bruno comp and the underlying numbers in his recent games) and explore them a little more, rather than spending all this time nitpicking every single word? Each instance you just brought up can (and was intended to) mean something a lot more banal than you inflect. I called the hit a slump-buster because that's literally what it was. It ended a streak of 23 straight hitless at-bats.

 

I'm sorry you found the positive wording about a 23YO rookie who seems to be pulling himself out of the mud confusing. I like what I'm seeing so it's reflected in the writing, as is generally the case.

[jokin]

I don't think Nick is grinding an axe - I just think there were two excellent points to make (Bruno's career comp to Hicks and a breakdown of his last 10 ABs) and this article unfortunately doesn't do a good job of either. It comes off exactly how others like kab have interpreted it. My impression before I hit the comments was that this was far too soon declaring "corner turned!"

 

My issue specifically was the drawing pf broad conclusions and using statistically insignificant data when it suits one's purpose (axe-sharpening) and dismissing someone else's argument when it doesn't.

 

While Hicks has looked a little better at the plate in the last 4 games, one could easily say that there was some bad pitching strategy and maybe some bad pitchers over these games. Notice that it is a fact that Hicks is only getting 48% of his pitches in the strike zone (almost a full percent less balls thrown in the zone than Joe Mauer!), and- this number has been trending significantly to increasing pitching wildness to Hicks in the last week. The Fox announcer on Saturday made a point of mentioning that Hicks has been frequently striking out on 3 pitches and that Mike Scoscia was very upset that his pitchers weren't going right at Hicks during the Angels series while he and Bert were wondering out loud why Floyd and the others were also nibbling at a guy batting .046. So it ends up fair to say that Hicks is becoming more patient and doing better at recognizing pitches out of the zone, but we have yet to see him come close to "breaking out". His LD% is all of 6.9%, 3rd worst in all of baseball!- and although game temperatures were frigid last week, Hicks wasn't exactly firing frozen ropes to the OF on this alleged epic "corner turning" run. Bottom line, more work to do on Hick's part and more data to be collected before serious conclusions can be drawn.

[Nick Nelson]

My issue specifically was the drawing pf broad conclusions and using statistically insignificant data when it suits one's purpose (axe-sharpening) and dismissing someone else's argument when it doesn't.

When did I dismiss anyone's argument? I put this article up because I was interested in seeing other viewpoints on Hicks' shifting plate approach and I've enjoyed reading the takes on the thread.

 

Geez, some of you folks are just determined to pick a fight on every topic.

[TheLeviathan]

Geez, some of you folks are just determined to pick a fight on every topic.

 

Look don't make this about everyone else, most of the issues stem from your, to use your term, banal language. It opens the door for misinterpretation because there is no clear thesis here. You claim your point was about Hicks' approach and the article had precious little to say about that. Then you got huffy with me for using a synonymous term. "Starting to find one's way" = "turn the corner"! I didn't walk in looking to misinterpret your point - banality and a lack of clarity on your part caused that. And a half dozen or so independent posters share that problem.

 

i've written a crap-ton of unclear things in my day, I don't agree that you are intentionally grinding an axe. I just don't think this article communicated well what you have stated was your point. Nothing more.

[jimbo92107]

I'm seeing a difference between left side and right side. Do you see it with Hicks as well?

 

From the right side his swing looks fairly smooth and together. From the left side I see him falling back instead of shifting his weight. His plate coverage and power seems effected by this.

 

Mostly I've seen Hicks bat lefty, but yeah, his rightie mechanics do look better. Also, I should mention that his "French Mistake" backwards butt push doesn't always happen. Sometimes he does a kind of neutral hip pivot. My point is that all good hitters let the back hip come around and forward, lagging just behind the swing. If you want to extend the bat outwards and forwards, then your front hip must be the axis of rotation. Good hitters don't leave the back foot stay planted back there, and you sure don't see the front foot draw back. I've seen Hicks do both, and it seems like the ball is a foot beyond the end of his bat. Very frustrating to watch, and I'm sure it's frustrating for Hicks.

 

Fortunately there's an easy, low-tech solution to iron-out this problem. Find a stick from an old shovel or garden rake, then from behind the batter hold the pointy end just behind their front butt cheek. As long as he rotates his back hip around the front hip, he won't get poked in the butt. This will either solve the problem or start a fight, which is okay, 'cause you both have a stick. ;-)

[Nick Nelson]

I just don't think this article communicated well what you have stated was your point. Nothing more.

Yep. We get it dude. But thanks for restating it three times. Fortunately, it seems like plenty of people did get the point, and I've enjoyed most of the banter that actually relates to the topic.

 

My point is that all good hitters let the back hip come around and forward, lagging just behind the swing. If you want to extend the bat outwards and forwards, then your front hip must be the axis of rotation. Good hitters don't leave the back foot stay planted back there, and you sure don't see the front foot draw back. I've seen Hicks do both, and it seems like the ball is a foot beyond the end of his bat. Very frustrating to watch, and I'm sure it's frustrating for Hicks.

Interesting observation. Wonder if this is something Brunansky has been working with him on. It sounded like he had some very specific ideas about what needed fixing.

[Kwak]

This whole mess falls on the front office for not bringing in someone who can reliably man center field.

 

Ah, another of the "we need three..." club. Mastroianni was the 2nd CF. There are only 25 men on the Active Roster. Twins simply can't be three deep every position. Then there's the obvious: The chest pounding due to all the OF (especially CF) talent in the franchise. Acquiring someone else's castoff CF is a huge mistake and wasteful of whoever would be exchanged for said CF. The odor worse than Ramos for Capps has been avoided so far, I hope it continues.

[LaBombo]

Ah, another of the "we need three..." club. Mastroianni was the 2nd CF. There are only 25 men on the Active Roster. Twins simply can't be three deep every position. Then there's the obvious: The chest pounding due to all the OF (especially CF) talent in the franchise. Acquiring someone else's castoff CF is a huge mistake and wasteful of whoever would be exchanged for said CF. The odor worse than Ramos for Capps has been avoided so far, I hope it continues.

When did anyone push for three CF's on the 25 man roster? With one bench spot going to the backup catcher, two backup CF's would use half the available bench positions. Nobody wanted that.

 

Several people (including me) were concerned about the possibility that with no time in AAA, Hicks may not be ready (!!!) and about the near certainty that Benson would be a mess like last year. We just wanted to see a more realistic CF backup option in AAA than Brandon Boggs in case Hicks faltered or Mastro was hurt. Shockingly, both those things have already happened.

 

And comparing the Ramos trade to what the Twins might have to 'give up' (PTBNL?) to get a guy like Borbon is just silly. Nobody was suggesting anything like that.

[cmathewson]

The Twins have 5 center fielders between AAA and the majors:

 

Hicks

Mastroianni

Benson

Boggs

Thomas

 

The Mastroianni injury has lingered, somewhat unexpecedly. Benson slumped a lot more than the club expected. Boggs and Thomas are not on the 40 man. As we showed, the difference between Boggs and Borbon is practically negligible. If the team felt a need to make a move, they would have made room for Boggs. But they are trying to give Hicks a real chance and not cutting it short. I'm glad they did, cause if you sent him out after that game against the Royals, there's no telling how long it takes for him to get his confidence back.

 

BTW, Borbon was not an option: The Cubs claimed him before the Twins had a chance. As bad as the Twins were last year, the Cubs were worse, so they had first dibs.

[Brad Swanson]

I'm just not sure who the Twins should have signed as a backup CF option. Realistically, who was out there? Plus, the Twins were probably confident that either Benson or Hicks would seize the opportunity and run with it. It hasn't worked that way. I just fail to see who was really out there as a backup CF. If they sunk any sort of cost into another CF, they would be carrying four on the 40-man with two more available at AAA.

 

For all the roster issues that may exist, this one seems particularly nitpicky.