Skip to content

NationalsProspects.com

NationalsProspects.com

  • About
  • FAQs
  • 2025 Watchlist and Player Reports
  • Too Old For The Level?
  • Road Trips

Season Review: 2012 Auburn Doubledays

October 15, 2012

For the second straight season, the Auburn Doubledays won the Pinckney Division and racked up a .600+ winning percentage. Alas, for the second straight season they fell short of the league championship, losing in the Divisional round this year instead of the Finals last year, two games to one.

As the year prior, the lion’s share of the Doubledays roster was 2012 draftees — seven of the top 12 batters in terms of PAs, five of the top 12 pitchers in terms of IPs. This, of course, is a product of the Washington focus on drafting collegiate players (26 of 40) in general and seniors in particular (16 of 24 signees). Not to, um, beat a dead horse, but my stance from last year that the Nats should consider drafting more HS players in light of the large number of 22-24-y.o.’s in the system remains the same.

That the parent club is now in a window of opportunity that has come sooner than most reasonable people would have expected (most of the “Natmosphere” pegged them winning about 85-87 games) solidifies that opinion. In other words, the organizatiom can afford to spend more time developing a hidden gem rather than playing it safe and hoping that a collegiate player can be pushed from a serviceable backup to an everyday player.

Continuing with our format, let’s examine how Auburn compared to the rest of the N.Y. Penn League…
HITTING

PITCHING

Like last season, the 2012 Auburn Doubledays could hit, leading the league in runs scored, hits, and batting average and were second in on-base percentage and slugging. They weren’t quite as proficient in stealing bases in terms of quantity, but were successful nearly 79% of the time, a slight dip from last year’s insane rate of 85.5 percent.

On the flip side, however, the pitching needed all that offense because it wasn’t up to snuff: 10th in runs allowed and hit batsman, 13th in ERA and home runs allowed, 14th in hits allowed. There are a couple of caveats worth noting. Just two starting pitchers were below league-average in terms of ERA, though it should be noted that a couple pitchers had huge ERA-FIP differentials, which is not uncommon in short-season ball, and roughly a half-dozen pitchers had better than a 3:1 strikeout-to-walk ratio.

I’m listing the Top 13* hitters and pitchers in terms of plate appearances and innings pitched and using defensive games played for the listing of position. The full statistics for the team can be found here.
(# = 2011 Draft Pick   ** = DSL Graduate)   *One extra because the #13 guy on both lists is worth noting

There is really little to complain about when it came to the offense — 10 of these 13 were above league average in GPA (link for those unfamiliar) and seven had isolated power rates (likewise) above the norm. Yes, you can write off some of this in the aggregate to age, but this was true last year and that carried over to Hagerstown this year (as predicted).

Defensively, the team was middle-of-the pack with one rather notable exception: catchers. Kieboom and Manuel (along with third-stringer Andruth Ramirez) combined to throw out 45% of the runners that attempted to steal against them and allowed a league-low 38 in 76 games, which is phenomenal when you consider how many opportunities teams had to run against them. Plus, the trio committed just six errors (four by Ramirez) for an aggregate fielding percentage of .991.

It’s not all sunny though, as we move along to the pitchers…

To be sure, there are some bright spots to be found here. Robert Benincasa’s outstanding walk and strikeout rates (1.2 BB/9and 12.3 K/9 for a ratio of 10.67 to 1) Derek Self’s 2.50 FIP, Nick Lee and Blake Monar’s HR rates (0.29 and 0.16 respectively). But you can also see a some high walk totals and as aforementioned, the team gave up the second-most HRs in the league. There are also quite a few innings there thrown by middle-relief/swingmen that had ERAs close to 5.00 (121⅓ between Medina, Waterman and Fischer, which sounds like a law firm, doesn’t it?).
OBLIGATORY TOP FIVE LISTS
For the third straight year, I was able to make it to an Auburn contest, albeit a single game in Aberdeen. Still, this mostly sight-unseen, like the GCL and DSL and prone to the same problems that lead to the same misjudgments in rankings. For example, I put Bryce Ortega ahead of Matt Skole last year and didn’t rank Nathan Karns as a Top 5 for Auburn (though in my defense, Karns had a WHIP of 1.473 over eight starts after blowing through the GCL). So I expect to be wrong on a couple of these, too (hence the honorable mentions, natch).

Top 5 Batters
1. Estarlin Martinez
2. Wander Ramos
3. Brandon Miller
4. Shawn Pleffner
5. Mike McQuillan
HMs: Spencer Kieboom, Narciso Mesa

Top 5 Pitchers
1. Nick Lee
2. Robert Benincasa
3. Derek Self
4. Brett Mooneyham
5. Pedro Encarnacion
HMs: Ivan Pineyro, Cody Davis

Post navigation

Previous Post:

AFL Update: Oct. 14, 2012

Next Post:

AFL Update: Oct. 16, 2012

10 Commments

  1. giostras says:
    October 15, 2012 at 10:03 am

    In 2012 the new CMA limited the total bonus amount that the Nats could spend on draftees. Given their intention to concentrate the available cash to signing Giolitto, they wouldn’t want to draft a player who had the option of entering or re-entering college. Your point on drafting “diamonds in the rough” is well taken, but I suspect that a Mike Trout would have too much leverage to accept the bonus that was available to the Nats. I know that the Nats have their own rating system that they rigorously employ to take the best player available. Could it be that, in each of their selections, the best player available, taking signability under the CMA into account, was a college senior rather than a high school kid? Your thoughts?

    1. Luke Erickson says:
      October 15, 2012 at 12:46 pm

      A Mike Trout is anything but a diamond in the rough — I’m referring to taking some chances on HSers and JuCo’s in the middle rounds (e.g. 11-20) where you might get an Ian Desmond.

      There’s been a lot talk about how the 2011 CBA would drive more HSers to college, but I’ve yet to see anything more than anecdotal analyzing the actual effects the new CBA has had. For example, nobody predicted that teams would use rounds 4-10 this year to scoop up “signable” college seniors and then take chances with the savings starting in the 11th round (link will explain the loophole that teams found).

      The draft is way out of my wheelhouse, but common sense dictates that a 22-year-old is going to have to shock a lot of people to crack the DC lineup in the 2014-2017 timeframe, especially when the team is picking in the low-to-mid-20s of each round. You don’t, of course, stop drafting and developing talent — guys get hurt, they unexpectedly decline, you may need prospects for a trade (*ahem*) — but I believe the organization can now more easily afford to wait five years for a draftee to develop.

      Again, I know that’s a hell of a lot easier said than done and I’ll repeat: The draft is not my forté (probably around a two-té).

  2. Snubs says:
    October 15, 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Batters:
    -Pleffner should be higher (.329 avg, 394 OB% – more than 1-3 in those categories)
    -Renda over McQuillan for the 5 spot

    Pitchers:
    -Cody Davis and Travis Henke over Derek Self and Robert Benincasa
    -Monar over Encarnacion

    1. Luke Erickson says:
      October 15, 2012 at 12:51 pm

      Mark L – This is why I’m reluctant to rank ’em all.

      1. Snubs says:
        October 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm

        It is difficult to rank any if you have only seen the batters hit a handful of times and have never seen the majority of the pitchers. As someone who watched more Auburn games than you did, I just think your assessment is off. I think if you watched more games, you would agree with me.

        1. Luke Erickson says:
          October 15, 2012 at 3:33 pm

          Agreed. Note the “Obligatory” — I’m not keen on doing Top XX lists because I hate the bickering over why Prospect A is listed higher than Prospect B, but I also realize that I can’t ignore what the people want entirely.

      2. Mark L says:
        October 15, 2012 at 5:39 pm

        Point taken. (he says chuckling)

  3. jeeves says:
    October 15, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Picture-jeeze, Luke. Definitely a horse of a different color.

    1. Luke Erickson says:
      October 16, 2012 at 7:37 am

      For those unfamiliar with the reference from the movie “Office Space”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PywI0BOxJpI

  4. Trevor says:
    October 18, 2012 at 7:22 pm

    For starting pitchers I’d put both Monar and Mooneyham over Lee. Monar had too many walks but I read that many came bc he was pitching with a cut/blister for many games before eventually going on the DL at the end of the season. Plus, if you include Lee’s HBP, he gave up too many free passes as well. I give Mooneyham the nod bc of stature. 6’5″ over 5’11”. His K/9 was disappointing to me, but he got people out quckly and finished with a very good ERA. Don’t get me wrong though, I liked watching Lee as well. He has a great strikeout pitch but for LH starters I’d pitch Lee in game 3.

Comments are closed.

Pay The Bills




About/Contact/Misc.

  • About
  • FAQs
  • 2025 Watchlist and Player Reports
  • Too Old For The Level?
  • Road Trips

Resources

  • NationalsProspects on BlueSky
  • NationalsProspects on Facebook
  • RSS Feed
  • The Big Board
  • The Nats Draft Tracker
  • The Nats IFA Tracker

Blogroll

  • District On Deck
  • Fredericksburg Nationals (Facebook)
  • MLB.com Nationals Draft Tracker
  • Musings about Sports…
  • Rochester Red Wings (Facebook)
  • Senators Fan Club (Facebook)
  • TalkNats.com
  • The Nats Report
  • Wilmington Blue Rocks (Facebook)

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
© 2025 NationalsProspects.com | Powered by WordPress | Theme by MadeForWriters