2007 Tampa Bay Devil Rays Prospects

7 Skill?

Plate discipline surely isn't one of them. He walked once in 100+ ABs in the majors, 15 in 345 ABs in AAA, and his P/PA in the majors was the lowest among those with 100+ ABs. That approach is only going to go so far

by PooNani on Dec 29, 2006 12:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Thank you...

seriously I'm starting to think that Young is becoming one of the most overrated prospects of all time.

The guy is going to be a good player, but his game is seriously lacking. I love his swing, and the ball screams off his bat, no doubt those are all pluses. Unfortunately negatives like a whiny attitude, a body type that gains weight easy, and horrible plate discipline are scary.

I've seen why people love Delmon whenever I see him play. Still I can't get the hype because he doesn't have the skills of certain guys.

Elijah Dukes has the same scary tool set, a better work ethic, and more refined skills but is usually knocked severely for his attitude. Young lacks Dukes' drive, has lesser baseball SKILLS, and has the attitude of someone who thinks he should be handed anything he wants, yet is considered the best prospect in the game by many.

I just don't see it in anything bus his potential. And other things like his makeup make me think he'll never reach that ridiculous cieling.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reality check

I'd love to see statistical proof that Dukes is a better prospect than Young.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 2:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don't know the results, but like looking...

so, I normally measure a hitter by his %XBH because that tells me how hard he's hitting the ball, and by BB/PA because that tells me how his batting eye is. I also look at overall OPS and K/PA, so lets check it out.

I'll list it as age, level, %XBH, BB/PA, K/PA, OPS

Dukes 2003: 19, A, 29.7%, 9.5, 3.29, 709
Young 2003: n/a

Pretty weak season overall for Dukes, but his PD wasn't bad.

Dukes 2004: 20, A/A+, 35.9%, 9.5, 4.3, 791/956
Young 2004: 18, A, 34.1%, 10.7, 4.7, 922

Even tho Dukes season was slightly superior, statistically speaking, you have to give the nod to Young for putting up a great year in A ball at 18.

Dukes 2005: 21, AA, 34.3%, 10.9, 5.9, 833
Young 2005: 19, AA/AAA, 33.5%, 20.4, 5.9, 968/750

Again, Young is doing it at such a young age that even tho Dukes' year is superior, you still have to give the nod to Young.

Dukes 2006: 22, AAA, 36.1%, 7.4, 7, 889
Young 2006: 20, AAA/Maj, 31.8%, 30.3, 5.4, 815/812

2006 is the only year where Dukes clearly outperformed Young across the board. The AAA/Maj splits aren't significant for Young. not only that but Dukes appears to be trending in the right way, improving his walk rate and strikeout rate from 2005 to 2006.

And Dukes averaged 22.75 Sbs a year, and Delmon had 25. So both show some speed.

Looking at all of this, it appears Young is trending the wrong way with PD, and %XBH, while Dukes appears headed in the right direction, statistically speaking. His %XBH has held steady, his PD is improving. But you can't ignore that he's doing all of this 2 years ahead of Dukes.

So, I think, statistically, it's closer than some want to admit. I think year to year, Dukes does outperform Young, but at this point, Young is the better prospect because of his age, not his numbers.

I think Dukes shows the ability to catch and pass Young in terms of maj production because of his advanced PD, but Young is still young enough to learn that skill.

by beastball on Dec 29, 2006 3:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Although it can't be proven

Many Rays fans watching Young in 2006 noticed some changes in Young. He was told by the organization to work on his improving his OBP, which he technically did without even walking much.

There's also rumblings that he pouted for most of the season and loafed because of his standing in the organization as the proverbial "golden child". When he returned from his suspension, his power miraculously returned and he really cranked it up.

Delmon, when he was called up, stopped his "spoiled" brat act and was a respectable teammate, which Maddon termed as "boyscout"-like.

We'll see the "real" Delmon in 2007, I believe.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 5:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yeah, I'm still a big Delmon fan...

mainly because of what he was doing in full season at 18. So I think the potential is there, for sure. And I'm sure the off-field issues contributed to his performance decline. The 2005 walk rate is a little disconcerting, but he's so young, that he could easily turn it around.

However, I was more impressed by Dukes, whose trend is impressive as he cut his K rate down every year, and then significantly improved his walk rate in 2006 (we'll see if that's for real or not). Meanwhile he maintained a good %XBH every year, even his worst stat year.

I think both Young and Dukes could really bust out this year, if they both keep their noses clean, and if the DRays give Dukes a shot at 1b out of spring.

by beastball on Dec 29, 2006 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Proof, bah! :)

re: "I'd love to see statistical proof that Dukes is a better prospect than Young."

"Proof" when it comes to prospects is always going to be impossible. That said, my handy MLP system shows the composite minor league records of these two indicating potential (as in "normal season" rate stats) of:

Dukes: 1486 AB, .257/.336/.407, 24% K%
Young: 1413 AB, .277/.325/.472, 20% K%

The AB are the total minor-league AB I had to work with. I'm thinking that if either one does as poorly as these indicate, a LOT of people will be disappointed.

by BobbyMac on Dec 29, 2006 3:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Um...

what about recent trends for both?

Dukes has improved at every level, and has not been old for any.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

whiny attitude, body type that gains weight easily, and plate discipline. well lets see, kirby puckett matches two of those traits, especially the weight part, albert belle and manny ramirez match all three. those are the names that came to mind less than 2 seconds after reading that. sure those are less than desirable traits, but it is NUMBERS that gets you into the Hall, and Delmon, despite his problems has what it takes to get there. Now, I can predict the future, he could end up a bust, but he's got more talent than 99.9% of other prospects. Elijah Dukes has a ton of talent as well, but I still wouldnt put him on Delmon's level

by rangersfan24 on Dec 29, 2006 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay Mikey, I'll bite...

I'm fairly pro-Delmon, and will ignore the attitude and weight issues for now, chalking one up to youth and ignoring the other because of his athleticism for his size.

But the plate discipline is an issue. And comparing his approach to that of Ramirez is ignoring all the facts. Manny put up a .311/.409/.595 line in the minors and has been a .314/.411/.600 hitter in the bigs.

And while Belle isn't as patient his career .295/.369/.564 line, with 683bb in just under 5900ab's is probably the best case for Young. The upside here is that his power and patience regressed some in Durham and Tampa from his lower level numbers, so there may still be some hope that he'll improve to a "reasonable" level.

by deweyforthehall on Dec 29, 2006 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

first of all

its attitude ISSUE, not ISSUES. he is not elijah dukes. and weight issue? he ways 205, since when is that overweight?! as far as comparisons to Manny- Manny didnt make it to the bigs until he was 21(still really good tho), and didnt hit over .300 until he was 23. Manny has always had poor playe discipline in terms of k's. What I dont understand is how a .295 career avg is best case scenario for Delmon. Where do you get that from? What about his career so far suggests that? I really would like to know

by rangersfan24 on Dec 29, 2006 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Don;t know what you all are debating...

but saw Manny's name thrown in there, so decided to look at his final minor league season.

He was 21, played over AA and AAA. He had 46% of his hits go for extra bases, which is other worldly. You don't really have to look any further. But he also had a walk every 7.6, which is really strong, better than most on our list. And he struck out once every 5.4 PAs, which isn't pretty good for a power hitter.

I don't think there's a good Manny comp around right now. Gordon, our current #1, is the closest, and he was in AA at 22, and had 43.7% XBH, 7.75 PAs/BB, and 4.9 PAs/k.

by beastball on Dec 29, 2006 3:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What?

K's in isolation doesn't matter to me. I'm not a fan of hitters like Young and Soriano who K like 10 times for every 1 walk (exaggerated or not).

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes...

now check the skillset each of them had.

All of them took a decent amount of walks, and none of them K'd a huge amount. Young does the opposite.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 4:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

really?

young strikes out once every 5 AB's, Manny once every 4.5 AB's. Ya, Young sure does the opposite huh. and ya, that was a bit of an exaggeration there buddy- delmon k's 3 times per walk. there is a big difference between 3/1 and 10/1. but i guess delmon gets no credit for the fact that hes in the pros as a 20 year old, and in all actuality should have been there as a 19 year old, but no, we wont cut him any slack on the k's now will we

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 12:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hm...

Manny also averages 80 walks a season, probably more.

Young has never shown that kind of skillset. Manny's a guy who usually has a .100 IsoD. Young will be lucky to have a .030 iso next season IMO. That discipline really fell apart since the second half of '05.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 2:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

so then what youre saying is

delmon gets cut absolutely no slack for being a 20 year old in the majors? ok well, if thats the way you feel, then im done with this argument. You are expecting all-star numbers from a 20 year old and cutting him absolutely no slack. When you start going to crap like IsoD to start showing how delmon isnt any good, im out

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 12:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Plate discipline

Is a skill that often matures last. I would say that his plate discipline is definitely a concern, but no more than that right now.

To project that he'll still be having a very low walk rate when he is 25 or 30 is an unwarranted inference. Certainly, we'd all be much happier if he already showed the plate discipline of Brian Giles, but Delmon has PLENTY of time to straighten that out.

As for his performance compared to Dukes, yes, Dukes has outperformed him by a slight margin overall, but Delmon being two years younger at the same level really is a big deal and makes Delmon clearly the better prospect.

by BaseballBrain on Dec 30, 2006 12:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Couple things...

How many guys significantly improve their plate discipline as they get older? I've already brought this up but I don't think that got any replies.
I think age is being a little overrated. When you look at performance, Young wasn't ready for AAA.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 1:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DY

I have addressed this a few times, actually. His plate discipline is not poor, and by discipline, I mean ability to see pitches and swing at strikes, not pitches out of the zone. His approach is fairly poor, as he swings at pretty much any pitch over any part of the plate, probably because he feels lie he can crush anything. As he matures, he will learn that he cannot hit anything and everything and that he will have to target specific pitches in specific zones. Plate approach CAN be adjusted, and I'm fairly sure Delmon will.

by rmande09 on Dec 30, 2006 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Comparing manny to delmon will be dissapointing

Guys.. i think the main point was that someone tried to compare manny ramirez's strike #'s to Delmons... but the issue is its not about how many times one strikes out, but how many times they walks compared to how many times they strike out. If you want to compare ages.. when manny was 20 years old he had 45 walks to 74 ks or a ratio of .61 which is very very strong. Delmon this year in AAA had a 15 to 65 bb to k ratio or .23 which is very weak. In the majors he had a 1 to 24 walk to K ratio in 30 games... Manny when he first got called up (yes he was older, but had less seasoning in the minors)had a 2bb to 8 ks ratio in 22 games. So while manny was a free swinger when he came up, he made a lot more contact.

For manny's career he has a very strong .72 bb/k ratio. In the minors it was .73, so his career as a MLB player was similar that way to his minors. Delmon so far in his minor league career is .34...

So i would be very careful before i compare those two, because right now delmon will never come close to being manny.

By the way Delmons .300 batting avg as a 20 year thaat you are so impressed by was the results of a 40% hit rate... meaning almost .400 babip.. the norm for a major leaguer lies around 30%. which means that given a normal hit rate would've produced 31 hits instead of 40.. which brings that .317 avg down to .245... which is why sample size is so improtant.. 9 hits make a 70 point different in his batting avg.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Dec 30, 2006 1:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this is too funny

teh things some people will say to try and knock down a player. I guess that is the beauty of living in America, we are free to say what we want, free to choose what and who we say it about, and free to be total hypocrites for not applying the same philosophy to everyone. Lets face it, I bet you wouldnt try to do that sort of math for every player in the minors would you? No, not the players you really like, because that just wouldnt be any fun. It's ok man, we all do it to some extent

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 2:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He might not, but I do...

I saw this Young-Manny comp before, and it just doesn't stick. Manny's final year in the minors was head and shoulders better than Young, and it was better than anyone on our list. But that's not fair, Mannys don't come around every day.

I was in the middle of comp'ing Young to Soriano. Vlad, and Tejada. Vlad clearly outperforms, while Tejada is closer to what Young did. But none of them had the poor walk rate. On the bright side, Young isn't striking out at an alarming rate, so he's making contact, it's just he's not walking. Even Soriano walked more than Young did in his final year.

Look, there's no reason to get defensive about it because not everything is revealed by the stats, but by the same token, the numbers don't lie. Young's %XBH and walk rate were exceptionally poor in 2006, and comparing him to the major league elite just doesn't hold water right now, as most of them outperformed him in their final year in the minors.

As I said before, I'm a Young fan, I believe he'll turn it around. He was showing solid walk rates early in his career, and just degenerated over the past couple. He could've been pressing, it could've been anything. It's not waht you like to see, but it's not the end of the world.

however, there's no reason to argue the numbers because, as I said, the numbers are what they are, and they should Young trending the wrong way.

And as I said, I like to break down the numbers for all players, guys I like or guys I don't like. For me, the bottom line is that I want the best guys on my fantasy team regardless of who I root for as a normal baseball fan. So doing the numbers can't do anything but help me win the league.

by beastball on Dec 30, 2006 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you kinda came in at the wrong time

i was only comparing him to those other guys saying that the defficiencies delmon supposedly has does not necessarily make them a lesser ballplayer, as in the cases of manny, kirby, and belle

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 3:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry about that...

but I do like digging on numbers to check things out.

However, there are few elites that Young's 2006 season compares to, mainly because of the walk rate. But, lets check out Kirby and Belle's final minor league seasons.

Now let me say, that while I was a fan of Puckett's, I didn't think he was a great player, not an elite guy, not in my book. He was always just hovering around 900 OPS, but to each their own. In his final year, 26% XBH, 12.9 PA/BB, 9.6 PA/K. But, really, Kirby was a better real player than fantasy player, and if Young emulates Kirby's career and brings a championship to TB, then fans will be happy, and fantasy managers will be disappointed.

You know, Belle never really spent a full season in the minors, ever. So, I'll take 1989, cause he spent half a season in the minors then. He had a 45% XBH, 10.75 PA/BB, 3.9 PA/K. His %XBH was ridiculous, and his walk rate was ok. His K rate was poor tho. But it's how many extra base hit he had in half a season which tells you something. And it really outclasses Young.

Not that you asked for it, but I like digging in on things like this.

by beastball on Dec 30, 2006 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no thats fine

i was only using those guys bc they had the same supposed problems that was listed for delmon- poor plate discipline, whiny attitude, and body prone to putting on weight. and yet they had very successful careers despite them(tho kirby didnt have a whiny attitude)

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 3:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This your way of saying...

you have no real counterpoint?

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Post was for....

rangerfan.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that was my way of saying

that im sick of people coming up with all sorts of goofy crap to knock down certain players but choose not to do the same for their favorite players

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 3:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

That's exactly what it means.

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV. -Joe Morgan, Emmy winning BASEBALL analyst

by gatling on Dec 30, 2006 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One reason....

this swing first mentality bothers me is because major league pitchers will adjust to Young far quicker than he will to them.

I do agree with people who said Young tends to swing at strikes, but like I said Francoeur got the same thing said about him a year ago. That might have been because everyone threw the rookie strikes.

I'd like to see him after guys start messing with him this year. Its how he adjusts at the ML level that could tell us alot about him.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DY

There's no question that Delmon will probably go through a rough spell before he is successful, unless, like I said, he adjusts his approach before he fails.

Whoever said Francoeur swings at just strikes is crazy. He notoriously swung at anything within a foot of the strike zone in the minors, and, as you can see, loves swinging at balls in the dirt. Fortunately for Francoeur, his power is unreal and his hand-eye coordination is unreal, which allows his to hit a lot of those pitches very hard. Delmon has ALWAYS swung at strikes rather than pitches out of the zone, ever since his early minor league days at 18. Like I've said, his approach is the problem. Major League pitchers who think they are going to exploit Delmon by throwing breaking balls out of the zone are going to be thoroughly disappointed, because it won't work - throw him offspeed pitches on the black, and they should be successful. But Delmon definitely has the ability to adjust, without question, it is whether he will let his maturity - or lack thereof - get in the way.

by rmande09 on Dec 30, 2006 1:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that could, and should

be said about EVERY single prospect that breaks into the majors, whether it is a hitter or a pitcher. The adjustment takes place on both ends

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 2:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

plate discipline

almost always improves as players get older. that doesnt mean they will have hawk eyes or anything but its practically common sense- as they adjust to the pitching, and get used to seeing the pitches, they will get better at strike zone judgement. now, EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, you have guys that dont improve at all. i.e. juan gonzalez- he'll be swinging at that low and away slider 95% of the time, and hell whiff on it 99% of the time. Delmon hit over .300 as a 20 year old in the majors. His power was decent, basicall 1 hr/10 games, but that will improve as he matures

by rangersfan24 on Dec 30, 2006 2:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No proof...

whatsoever in your first statement.

And your second statement involved less than 200 ABs.

Hell, he didn't even have 130 ABs.

Do you see him hitting .317 over a full season next year?

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, jumping in late...

But, lets look at a few star players, see if they're PD improved as they got older. If you had anyone particular in mind, we can look at them. I was just going to use Vlad, Tejada, Manny, and Soriano. Just cause they've been talked about to this point. But lets throw some others into the mix, like M Cabrera, Beltran, Ortiz, and Hafner.

I'll compare their rate in their final year in the minors and their rate last year. This is listed as PA (plate appearances) per walk.

Vlad: 10.2 in 1996; 13.1 in 2006. Actually regressed some.

Tejada: 11 in 1997; 15 in 2006. Regression.

Manny: 7.8 in 1993; 5.5 in 2006. 2006 was his highest rate in a while, he was at 7.9 in 2005, and 7.9 in 2004. So no change.

Soriano: 13 PAs/BB in 1999; 10.7 in 2006. I have to say that 2006 stands way out of bounds for Soriano. He was at 20.3 in 2005, 19.4 in 2004. So again, looks like regression.

Cabrera: 9.6 in 2003, 7.7 in 2006. Nice progression.

Beltran: 8.8 in 1998; 6.4 in 2006. Should be noted he was a 11.4 in 2005, but he was at 7.4 in 2004. So clearly he improved.

Ortiz: 13 in 1997; 5.7 in 2006, and 6.9 in 2005. Dramatically improved.

Hafner: 6.1 in 2002; 5.5 in 2006. Was always good at it, and has held steady.

Looks like about an even split between progression and regression.

Do you remember anyone else who had a terrible walk rate in the minors, but had success in the majors? If so, we can look at them too.

by beastball on Dec 31, 2006 12:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm kinda having a hard time...

Finding an established star player who really had a poor walk rate in the minors. Ortiz is the only one, and of course, in that season, he went from A+ to AAA, so it wasn't a great sample to use.

I was just going through the 3-year average point leaders for our fantasy league, not the greatest way to do it, but whatever.

Anyway, if someone can think of some names of guys who are established stars (like 3 years of all-star performances) but had a poor walk rate in the minors, then let me know. I'd be interested in taking a look at them.

by beastball on Dec 31, 2006 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If I remember correctly

Sammy Sosa's walk rate stunk in the minors, but Baseball Cube is down at the moment so I can't confirm...

by Brickhaus on Jan 2, 2007 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I skipped Sosa...

mainly cause I think he's a juicer, and if you look at his walk rate, it really didn't rocket until he started hitting homers at an abusrd rate.

His career high in BBs before he hit 66 homers in 1998 was 58 in 1995. So his best rate in the majors pre-juice was 10.7, his rate in his final full year in the minors was 15.5 in 1988.

But beyond 1995, which seems like an aberration, he really didn't improve. He was at 18 PA/BB in 1994, and 15.6 in 1996. He was at 15.3 in 1997.

So before he hit 66 homers, his walk rate really didn't improve from the minors. After that absurd homerun total, his walk rate jumped because people were pitching around him because he was hitting homers at a historic rate, but I don't count that because I don't think that homerun spike is part of normal development.

by beastball on Jan 2, 2007 11:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and you certainly have no business

even throwing "whiny attitude" into that equation if you want to sit there and defend Dukes. I mean why is it that people condemn Delmon for ONE thing, but yet EVERY year, people talk about "Dukes has so much talent, if only he could stay out of trouble," yet EVERY year Dukes finds a way to f&%k up

by rangersfan24 on Dec 29, 2006 2:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lordy

Lefty is voicing an opinion - not very defensible to tell him he has "no business" to think that somethign downgrades Young in his mind. Jeez.

Lefty's posts are invariably really insightful and worth thinking about.....certainly more informative than the responses in this thread. Seems pretty arrogant to state he has "no business" posting something, especially given his track record.

by siddfynch on Dec 29, 2006 2:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ok, i suppose that sounded wrong

so let me reword it so that lefty does not take offense- You should not condemn Delmon for one attitude mishap but then excuse it for Elijah. I was not trying to be a prick lefty

by rangersfan24 on Dec 29, 2006 3:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One?

I'm pretty sure DY has had more than 1 attitude "mishap"(I assume you are referring to hitting the ump with his bat?).

by cooper7d7 on Dec 29, 2006 3:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2nd Suspension...

http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/app/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060427&content_id=61874&vkey=n ews_milb&fext=.jsp

by cooper7d7 on Dec 29, 2006 4:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also...

the constant complaining about not being called up when he was clearly not ready annoyed me.

But I could concede that thats a little nitpicky.

And this is going to sound borderline retarded to even me because I come off as a guy who thinks like...logically...anyway:

I realize BJ Upton did the same thing.

But for one thing, Upton's game was way ahead of Delmon's as far as being polished.

Another thing is that Young's attitude has always been questioned, while BJ has always had at least solid makeup.

He might be a prospect I underrated severely, but I doubt that because I still think he can be pretty good. I just don't like his skillset, or his makeup.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 4:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Lefty

Just a word of advice...you're tone is coming off a tad arrogant in this thread. Maybe I'm misreading it - or maybe you feel very strongly about DY vs. ED...either way it is not very characteristic of your normal posts, so I noticed it.

Anyhow, I would disagree that Dukes has a better work ethic than DY. I have heard numerous complaints about Young, but most people acknowledge that he is an extremely hard worker.

Other than that - most of your points are valid.

by Dfarth on Dec 29, 2006 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

in my defense...I'm not the one telling people they have "no business" posting something like I posted.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 7:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

true

but i don't pay much attention to what the nonregulars post...

i do read yours

by Dfarth on Dec 29, 2006 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

he also hit .317

as a 20 year old in the majors. does that not count for anything??

by rangersfan24 on Dec 29, 2006 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Aye...

two words:

Sampe. Size.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Overused

People use "sample size" way too much, especially when they don't have a clear-cut argument in their favor.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 5:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

Jeff Francoeuer is the same kind of hitter Young is. High K, low BB, lots of line drives, lots of power.

Jeff Francoeur in his major league callup:

.300/.336/.549 - 257 AB (Note: His average fell almost .100 per month)

11 BB 58 K's

Francoeur 2006:

.260/.293/.449

The concept of sample size is very simple.

Flip a coin 1 time and you might get heads or tails. Will you get heads every time after if you got it the first time?

No. As the sample size gets larger, things will start to even out.

Arguing sample size is not some copout by people who "don't have a clear-cut argument." It's a legit point that a suprising amount of baseball fans fail to understand.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 29, 2006 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

subject

I love your post but your coin flip example is wrong. odds are it will come out tails more then heads. Something in the weight of the coin.

There you have it folks your stupid fact of the day.

by Josh on Dec 29, 2006 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Batting average doesn't count for anything...

not for me. I'm not going to trash Young because I still have high hopes for him, but his high batting average doesn't really tell me anything.

His maj numbers were pretty poor, in general, like one walk in 127 PAs. But because of his age, I'll give him a pass for now.

by beastball on Dec 29, 2006 9:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Two Cents from a Lurker

Hey guys, how's it going? I've never posted before (maybe once or twice), I mainly lurk because I enjoy John's articles/opinions and I like reading the thoughts of knowledgeable fans like yourselves. I actually have something to contribute (hopefully intelligent), so here goes:

I would first like to address the attitude problem of Young. I fully understand to be a bit "turned-off" by some of the problems Delmon has caused in his few years as a professional. But there are a few things that have to be taken into consideration. For one, he is very young. Obviously, we would like to see an 18, 19, 20 year old who can handle himself in every situation. Unfortunately, most of the time, experience brings maturity. At just 20 in AAA (and the spotlight), things are going to happen. Throwing the bat at the ump is inexcusable - I expect he learned his lesson from that and nothing of the sort will happen again. But things like whining and what-not do come with the age and maturity level. He was portrayed, from day one, as the 'future' of baseball. It is tough, as a teenager, not to let that go to your head. I believe Delmon gained a whole lot of maturity this year with everything that went wrong off the field (well, I guess the bat-throwing incident is on the field... I digress), and this is evidenced by his behavior in his stint with the Big League club. He is, by no means, out of the doghouse yet, but I believe that his attitude will not be an issue from here on out.

Next order of business is the statement that he has a frame that "gains weight easily." This statement is ludicrous. Why? Because his brother was extremely lazy? Or is it because he is an absolute monster? Or is it because he came into professional baseball still underdeveloped with a bit more fat on his body than you would like to see? As long as his work ethic (which is excellent) continues to be what it is, he will be fine.

Plate discipline is a big issue with Delmon Young's projection. Whenever he is brought up, the first thing someone will say is, "He has zero plate discipline because he does not walk!" Uh, have you ever seen the kid play? He rarely swings at pitches out of the zone. Rarely. I know it would be impossible to track this, but I would love to see how often he swings at bad pitches. His problem is not discipline, it is his approach. Whether it is because he still feels like it is high school, or A, or A+, or because of his immaturity, it seems rather apparent that he feels like he can hit any pitch that goes over the plate out of the yard. He does not take strikes. He does not take breaking balls. He takes balls, but anything over the plate he hacks at. And when I say hack, I mean he swings out of his shoes. So there is a few problems with this:

He swings at a lot of 0-0, 1-0, even 2-0 breaking balls, something a good hitter does not do (unless it is hung).
He swings at a lot of pitches that are not in "his" zones. They may be strikes, but even the greatest hitters have their weak spots.
Even with two strikes, he swings out of his shoes rather than shorten up. A guy of his size and power will still be able to drive the gaps with if he shortens the stroke - taking huge cuts with two strikes results in quite a few strikeouts.

I would love to see how many strikeouts he takes looking.

It is his plate approach that needs to be refined. That is something that WILL come, and is often the reason why hitters have trouble with high-K, low-BB totals in their early seasons. Plate discipline is not something you can be taught, but approach is something you can learn. I don't think it is a question of "if" Delmon will learn he cannot get by with his current approach, but when; he is very confident about his abilities, and I think it is going to take a bit of failure before he realizes he cannot take every single pitch thrown over the plate over the wall.

And please, do not compare Young with Francoeur. Francoeur has a plate discipline issue - anything that starts near the plate he swings at. He cannot lay off breaking pitches down in the dirt. Delmon does not have issues with that. They may have similar BB, K numbers, but that is where the similarities end.

by rmande09 on Dec 30, 2006 2:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This:

I would love to see how many strikeouts he takes looking.

is what gets me.

People said the same thing about Francoeur. At one point it was even said about Alfonso Soriano. Being aggressive is good to a point, just like being paitent.

The fact is age does not garauntee better plate discipline. How many players can you name that have dramatically changed their plate disicpline throughout a career? Sammy Sosa is often cited, but how many others? Sammy was the exception, not the rule.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 3:00 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ooops

Sorry, it was late. My actual intentions were to say, "I would love to see how many times Delmon Ks swinging at pitches outside of the strikezone."

by rmande09 on Dec 30, 2006 12:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

strawman

by I Love Oakland As on Dec 30, 2006 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh yes....Agreed.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 1:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank you

It's about time someone who actually WATCHES baseball decided to post an opinion on Delmon Young.

Anyone who WATCHES Delmon Young knows that the guys has an AMAZING batting eye. The problem, as stated above, is his approach.

The guy not only swings at nearly everything in the zone, but he makes consistent contact unless it is an absolutely nasty breaking pitch.

The comparison to Jeff Francouer is terrible IMO since Francouer has contact issues to go along with a terrible batting eye.

Also, why are people really complaining about an A grade? The guy is universally seen as a top 3 prospect and has been #1 on most lists for the last 2 years. At 20 years old, he has every tool imaginable (and BATTING EYE is the tool, not walks which is a statistic).

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Dec 30, 2006 4:03 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Vocal minority

It's generally the same people every time in both the cases of Delmon and Dukes. Some people really like Dukes and say it over and over. Some people really dislike Young and say it over and over. Creates the feeling that there are more than there really are in each case.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 30, 2006 9:44 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

subject

I'm not sure people are complaining about the A grade for Delmon, but the B grade for Dukes.

John stated Dukes was an A talent but marked down for his attitude. Delmon did hit an ump with a bat, so the Delmon lovers should expect others to point out his problems when reading this.

It appears to me Delmon kept his A grade because he is a top 3 prospect, but a guy like Dukes gets downgraded because he doesn't have the hype Delmon does. It is Johns list, but it is a double standard.

If you look at only the numbers Delmon is a freak. At the same time Dukes numbers are right there, and even better this year. Some will point to age, but Dukes was more Raw when he started. Delmon was groomed for what he is doing. This is a case for me where age doesn't tell the whole story.

by Josh on Dec 30, 2006 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

YEA!!!

I don't WATCH baseball!! Hell, I don't even LIKE IT!!

It's obviously true, I had the audasity to question THE Delmon Young.

I admit my criticism of Young might be too much, seeing as he has been a very good hitter in the minors.

But the loss of discipline and power in AAA is a problem. Especially since it's been about a year and a half. Young has drawn 20 (!) walks in 696 ABs above AAA, is that not a problem?

Sorry, but all the truly elite hitters in baseball draw their fair share of walks, because believe it or not there is value there. Young does not have that skill, though his batting eye at the plate is something I underrated. He looks like he'll hit for high average, but because of his approach his OBP and even power will be hurt by it.

Still, why is it that fans who question the greatness of Delmon Young are people who don't watch baseball?

As far as my Dukes thing, I just find it weird that a guy who has improved all facets of his game and increased his performance as he moved up gets so underrated. As far as being a baseball player Dukes is more polished than Young, and looks just as impressive on the field. Young, at least to me, seems like he has a huge sense of entitlement. Thats a bit of a turnoff for me in people.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

DY

I did not say you did not watch baseball - I have a feeling that part of your post was not directed at me, but I felt I would address it just in case.

I also did not comment on Duke. I love his skills - between him and Young, I am not sure I could pick a set of skills I would rather have. However, in defense of John (as it seems he is in the minority), Delmon seems to have cleaned up his act, though it is a small sample size. I feel comfortable saying we probably won't have to endure DY missing time because of suspension any time in the near future. Dukes, on the other hand, missed the entire end of the season because of suspension, and it is hard to say that he is "in the clear" when he has been suspended on many occasions and shows few signs of improvement. I do think the B grade is a bit low - I'd be around B+/A-. The fact that you seriously have to worry about him being on the field is enough to drop him a few grades - with Delmon, you have a good amount of certainty he will be out there everyday, barring injury.

On to his plate approach, not batting eye (or discipline). I believe in the ability to change your approach at the plate. It is something that many players have to go through. I'm not talking guys like Jeff Francoeur. I'm talking guys who had trouble with low BB, high K totals in the minors that adjusted when they finally learned they would get exploited in the Majors if they did not learn to take pitches and not swing at everything. Delmon really does make solid contact on nearly any pitch - that is evidenced by his very high BA, high K, and low BB total. I think change in approach is generally evidenced by maturity. When you learn that you are not perfect and you cannot crush every single pitch, then you learn that there are certain pitches in certain spots that you need to attack. You learn that with two strikes you need to shorten up, because most times, putting the ball in play is much better than striking out - you could crank one up the gaps, bloop one in, or the defense could boot it - who knows. But again, that comes with maturity. Many great hitters - guys have mentioned Manny Ramirez - come in to minor league baseball as MATURE hitters. That is generally the reason they get to where they are. They develop a maturity at the plate at a young age that gives them the ability to develop their actual hitting skill. Delmon is a bit of a, uh, anomaly I guess. The kid has an unbelievable batting eye. He sees pitches immediately and knows whether they will be in or out of the zone. His problem, however, is that he really does think he is the best hitter in baseball. He doesn't realize that he's not going to crank a hook on the outside corner over the fence like he did at A+. So when he sees one on 0-0, he swings away. I think that some failure will be the cause of a change in approach, which will ultimately result in success. It would be great to see a "new" and "mature" Delmon to start '07 - he certainly has the ability to be a great, great hitter. But I think it may take time before he actually gets there.

by rmande09 on Dec 30, 2006 12:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

elite hitters

Isn't the complaint about Young the same song we heard before about Guerrero, Soriano and Tejada. It seems to me they could be regarded as Elite players.

And I'm not a fan of Young, but he gives me the impression of having the eye sight and reflexes to succeed like those guys I mentioned.

The only big question will be weight. All those guys I mentioned kept in fantastic shape to keep their reflexes great. Will Young be able to stay in shape, more then one great career as been destroyed by weight gain.

Opus rules

by outlander on Dec 30, 2006 12:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Soriano...

at his best is an elite hitter. Unfortunately that was last year in his FA year and we have no idea how he'll look next year. .280/.325/.510 is not elite, and thats his career line.

The other two K less. Vlad topped out at 88, Tejada when he's good doesn't top 90. And Vlad almost has a career .070 ISO, which is pretty damn good, though alot of that has to do with alot of intentional walks every year.

It should also be noted that Tejada when he's not hitting .300 is only very good offensively because he's a SS. The seasons when hes hitting below .300 are very good for a SS, meh at best for a RF.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well soriano might be the exception to the rule

I think soriano might be one of those rare cases of where his play is actually better then our standard metrics for elite hitters (OBP and SLG).. I think he is a very dangerous hitter, because he can hit anything out of the park, and pitchers dont want to put him on base because he can steal, which is why leading of for him works so well. IN his career leading off an inning he is a .303/.344/.570 hitter... batting 1st he is .291/.340/.544.

His other major spots in the order are 3rd and 5th (which mostly came with the rangers), his line for 3rd is .264/.312/.460 and his line for 5th is .271/.316/.520.

I think soriano is not patient enough (although he was more patient last year doubling his walk rate), to bat with guys one base. I also think pitchers are more careful with him with guys on base. I think he is at his best as an explosive leadoff hitter who can punish the pitcher, but people want to bat him in the middle of the order because he hits for power. And if you notice his best seasons came with the yanks and nats (despite park effects that dont favor RH batters), because they primarily batted him leadoff.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Dec 30, 2006 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

soriano...

"I think he is a very dangerous hitter, because he can hit anything out of the park"

Ummm...except for a slider off the plate. He misses those every time.

by sabernar on Dec 30, 2006 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or....

a curveball in the dirt.

No one can hit them, Soriano's just one of those guys who tries everytime anyway.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Is that really the only part you read?

I think you should take a 2nd look.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Dec 30, 2006 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No its....

REALLY poorly written by me.

I agree with you completely.

I just wanted to emphasize because I left it out of one of my posts by accident.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 4:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Elite

I don't disagree with you, I'm not that big of a fan of Young. I will take a player with Power and high OBP any time before a free swinger.

But players who average between 25-35 Hrs with .300 BA and 100 RBIs are elite hitters whatever position they play (Tejada)

In fantasy leagues which start from scratch every year, Soriano will be in the top 5 drafted, mainly due to his steal and power potential. I would call that an elite hitter.

No one will argue about Guerreo being elite. As for controlling the strike zone, I saw him play a lot, and if the ball is reachable with a bat, he might and will probably swing at it. But the guy is not human when it comes to bat speed.

I only used those guys to point out that they succeeded even while being free swingers. Young has the bat speed to succeed, he seems to have the drive to do it. The point is, it has been done before. They can become great players without high walk count, and a kid graduating in MLB at 19, has the potentiel to be great.

Opus rules

by outlander on Dec 30, 2006 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

completely.

I don't play fantasy ball, and baseball isn't fantasy.

Soriano's SB come with inconsistent ability to steal successfully. He'll have one year like in '04 where he stole like 30 bases and got caught twice, and other years where he's just stupid out there.

He's got elite power though.

Still, if Soriano is in an elite class it is a class well below the leagues truly elite hitters (Berkman, Pujols, Howard).

Young is neither of those guys anyway. He does remind me alot of Tejada, and like I said before...Tejada not hitting .300 leaves him a great offensive player because of his position and power.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 3:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sori's sb ability

Well... hes no beltran or crawford... but he was 41 for 58 last year which is over 70%... which according to a study at the hardball times is the baseline for actually gaining something... so where last year he got caught enough to not gain a huge advantage for it,His career he is 210 for 270.. which is 78% which is a pretty good success rate.

Here is a good article part one of the series on how much good baserunning is worth
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/circling-the-wagons-running-the-bases-part-i/

So while he certainly is no beltran... hes def. a strong base stealer.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Dec 30, 2006 4:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm much more....

comfortable with high 70's up (barely), but I feel best at 80%.

The article also mentions nothing on SB%.

Most studies done today say its usually around 75-80%.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

80's?

thats ridiculousy high and very rare.. Rickey Henderson was at 80% on the nose for his career. Lou Brock was 75%... beltran is the best ever at 87%.. Jose reyes is at 80.8%... I cant find a comprehensive list but im fairly certain not too many base stealers eclipse 80%... especially for their careers.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Dec 30, 2006 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

80's

Jeter is at 80% on the nose. Althought the numbers might get worse as he gets older and slower.

Opus rules

by outlander on Dec 30, 2006 6:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

Guerrero's final year in the minors, 40% of his hits went for extra bases v 31% for Delmon. He walked once every 10 PAs v every 30 PAs for Delmon. And he struck out once every 10.5 PAs v ~5 PAs for delmon. So there's really no comparison.

Tejada was a little closer as he hit 32.6% XBH, but walk rate was still much better at 11 PAs/BB, while they struck out about the same. So Tejada is pretty close.

Soriano was at 37.7% XBH, 13 PAs/BB, and again, they struck out about the same.

So, in the end, Tejada looks like the closest thing to Young. But Young's walk rate is still much much worse than anyone else. However, the silver lining is that he isn't striking out more than those guys, which is good.

He doesn't compare to Vlad at all, really, but if he turns into Tejada or Soriano (minus the steals), I doubt many would complain.

by beastball on Dec 30, 2006 3:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

great post

One thing that tends to get lost in analyzing young players is the hyperbole they're being showered with has likely been used before. Thus comparing them to elite players who had similar ages in the minors that did work out in the majors is a great tool. I

t gives you a gauge of where they truly are in comparison to the people they get associated with.

by Team Moneyball on Dec 30, 2006 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

thats the entire premise behind PECOTA

Baseball prospectus' forecasting system

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Dec 30, 2006 5:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually..

I never meant to compare Young with any of these guys, comparisons never hold anyway. I just used them as examples of players that managed great careers while being free swingers. Obviously it takes a special talent. The type of talent that gets you to the Majors at 19.

Opus rules

by outlander on Dec 30, 2006 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Excellent post

Baseball insight, always nice.

What I think everyone can agree on is that one walk in 130 PAs is not going to cut it. He won't be a great player until he fixes that. I tend to agree with you that he has the aptitude and is pretty likely too, unlike a Francoeur.

by Brett Perryman on Dec 30, 2006 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dukes?!

B? You gotta be kidding, man. Attitude can't bring him down THAT much.

by ISC on Dec 29, 2006 12:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Speaking of which...

Delmon's attitude isn't top notch either.

by ISC on Dec 29, 2006 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

how productive can he be

...if he's suspended?

by nyybaseball99 on Dec 29, 2006 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I dunno..

Ask Delmon Young the same question.

by ISC on Dec 29, 2006 1:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

When I watch Delmon play

I see promise in his plate discipline. He hacks at pitches in the zone, and is very aggressive, but he has a very good eye on stuff off the plate and out of the strikezone. To me, his discipline will improve over time.

Longoria had very good discipline until reaching AA. I don't know if he was pressing then, was tired, or just had to adjust to AA pitching. I think he'll be fine in the long run, too.

by killa3312 on Dec 29, 2006 1:07 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Two Questions John

I have my book ordered already but I don't know if these questions would be in there. First, What makes Brignac higher than Longoria. I think Longoria will be the better of the two. Second, which of two rice pitchers do you like better, Humber or Niemann. Both have similar injury issues, and both looked to come back strong so that shouldn't be an Issue.

by Metty5 on Dec 29, 2006 1:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Noone puts Townsend in the corner

I'm actually psyched to see Wade post-surgery, for some odd reason.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

IsoPedroza Question

Would his grade go up if his pondered move to catcher is a reality and permanent?

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 1:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

re: Pedroza at C

I don't think you move his grade purely because they move him to Catcher (if they do). He'd still have to show enough defensive prowess to be a starting MLB catcher to move the grade. I own him in a sim league and a mini-version of Tettleton would be cool but I'm not holding my breath.

by natsfan2005 on Dec 29, 2006 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Very true

thanks

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 2:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Strongest

System? just looking at the grades their prospects got, I think they are

by wir963 on Dec 29, 2006 1:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fernando Perez

I personally have Perez up around #13; while he was old for league, he was a late starter in organized ball, and has shown steady improvement in all facets of his game each year.

Also, Erik Walker died in a white-water rafting accident a few months ago, so you might want to replace him with someone else in the book.

by Brickhaus on Dec 29, 2006 2:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ferny is decent

However, I see Ruggs as a more consistent OF production-wise than Perez.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 2:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

John Jaso

Does anyone know anything about John Jaso? He's a catcher at Vero Beach. He doesn't seem to be able to hit lefties, but he killed righties last year.
Is he projectable at all? I went to high school with him, and have been rooting for him, but he seems to have stalled... just wondering if anyone knows the reason.

by tacomaorange on Dec 29, 2006 2:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

health concerns

and a lack of a true position are my theories for his stalling.

Also, he's not the catcher at VB. He was the C/1B/DH for Visalia and he's more than likely going to start 2007 in Montgomery.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 2:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jaso

I wondered about him too, I expected to at least see him in the honorable mention if not the back end of the top 20. His home road splits were way off, he raked at home (.943 OPS) and sucked on the road (.697). It's possible that it was a bit of an anamoly, we'll see what next year brings. He has a solid bat for a catcher, and good plate discipline. He does struggle vs. LHP, but he'd fill the tougher part of a platoon. I like him more than I like Riggans, and I was suprised to see John rank Riggans where he did.

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV. -Joe Morgan, Emmy winning BASEBALL analyst

by gatling on Dec 29, 2006 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jaso can't catch

I've seen him play, he's not really a great fielder there.

Can't say I like him more at C than Riggans, Lopez(if he can ever start hitting) or the hopefully healthy Jared Edwards(05 draftee).

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 2:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Good to know

Thanks for the info on Jaso. I didn't realize he was that bad behind the plate.

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV. -Joe Morgan, Emmy winning BASEBALL analyst

by gatling on Dec 29, 2006 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Jeff Niemann

Is health the only reason why Niemann is below McGee because Niemann is down right filthy and probably has better potential than McGee.
I like McGee a lot but I'd go with Niemann over him. Of course, that's just my opinion.

by UncleBuck44 on Dec 29, 2006 2:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Players of note: Erik Walker?

Is that just a tribute thing since he's now dead?

by UCFKnights on Dec 29, 2006 2:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My guess is yes

but I could be wrong

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 2:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Joel Guzman

Now that he's 22 and still in Triple-A I'm hoping for a rebound year: 1) because he's talented; 2) because he won't be moved all over the diamond; 3) because he will improve; and 4) because he's repeating :D.

What are you guys thoughts on him? He's been sort of written off but I'm holding onto him and praying.

by Team Moneyball on Dec 29, 2006 2:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If the Rays can settle on a position for him

I'd comment on my expectations for him, but I've yet to hear anything.

I'm a big fan of him, but I think he needs stability before we can start his hype machine up again.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 2:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Young has a very good work ethic

That's one thing for which you cannot knock him. He's trimmed down his weight greatly and has a very rigorous offseason program. Unlike his brother, he wants to stay in shape and wants to be a great player.

Even if Young never gains any plate discipline (which I think he will), if he ends up like Andre Dawson hitting wise, is that such a bad thing?

by killa3312 on Dec 29, 2006 2:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Big question about Josh Butler

Josh Butler over anyone on that top 20 list?

Butler would struggle to be considered top 25 right now for me.

To have him over Andy Sonnanstine is a complete slap in the face for Sonny.

Butler wasn't even dominant in college ball and then tanked in pro ball. He was clearly an overdraft, to me at least, in the 2nd round where there were guys on his own college team who were widely considered better pitching prospects than him. His stuff is average for a righty and I see no reason to rank him above Sonnanstine unless you think 2-3 MPH on a fastball matters more than control, command, deception, and durability.

Seriously, when will Sonnanstine get the respect he deserves?

4 CG's, 3 CG shutouts, another season of sub-3 ERA and another season of durability. He's the epitome of a workhorse mid-backend major league starter. He's effective but still manages to get strikeouts while throwing 7+ innings virtually every start.

As for the rest of the list, I think you were pretty much accurate throughout the top 20 although I might have snuck Jon Barratt into the top 20 and think John Jaso is an honorable mention breakout type candidate who only needs to be healthy to put up a great season.

Barratt gets slighted because of his size/stature, but his stuff ranks up there with a lot of B grade prospects and he was the 2nd best starter in the Cal League behind Franklin Morales.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Dec 29, 2006 3:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

These are John's grades, YAK

So he must have his reasoning for it.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 5:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know...

And I'm hoping to get those reasons to either understand a) John's factors in ranking prospects OR b) Why I might be undervaluing Butler.

If he can give a legit reason for ranking Butler this high, I may reconsider my own ranking for him.

As of now though, after reviewing the scouting reports from college when he was drafted and looking at his poor statlines in SS-A ball, I can't see it from where I'm sitting.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Dec 29, 2006 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What the heck happened to Wes Bankston John?

I think you gave him a B+ in 2005. He had some injuries last year and an ill-advised position switch surely set him back, but he is still young enough to make a splash. The Rays don't exactly have any sure things manning 1B so he is relatively unblocked to the majors for 2007. The Rays can use his power bat in the middle of that lineup. Someone has to protect Delmon's big bat.

by yoshimi on Dec 29, 2006 4:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

With all of the OF/IF prospects that the Rays have 1B will be the easiest position to fill. Cantu, Iwamura, Upton, Longoria, Brignac, Gomes, Baldelli, Young, Dukes, Crawford, Guzman, Ruggiano are 12 guys for 8 spots, not counting Bankston. I'm sure a few of these guys will be traded somewhere, but I don't think that Bankston has an unblocked path to the majors at all, at least until he can stay healthy.

I don't get enjoyment out of reading baseball books. I'd rather watch a sci-fi movie on TV. -Joe Morgan, Emmy winning BASEBALL analyst

by gatling on Dec 29, 2006 4:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bankston

I've admittedly been the biggest Bankston booster around, but he's fallen off in my mind as well. The biggest reason for me, is that he crossed that line from having a couple of small unlucky injuries to the point of being considered "injury-prone", which is never a good thing for a corner infielder. Also, even though he was being toyed with defensively,m he seemed to lose his rhythm at the plate somewhat; he was generally a guy who would swing at good pitches, and he seemed to struggle with that a bit more. I have him placed about where John does, with the caveat that he could bounce back in a big way if he stays healthy and his HR power breaks out in Durham.

by Brickhaus on Dec 31, 2006 11:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rays fans can be nitpicky with injuries

To most, Rocco is injury prone because he had 2 fluke injuries.

by The Rocc on Dec 31, 2006 5:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dukes

I for one have no problem with the grade and I'm a big fan of his. He is a grade A talent and a grade A problem child. A + A = B

At the same time I can see why some would be upset with Delmon getting a straight A. He may not have the same problems Dukes has, but there is reason for concern and I feel his grade should touch on that. If a straight A is the best you can get I don't see how he was docked for his problems. Come on John give himn some tough love.

by Josh on Dec 29, 2006 5:30 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Tough love?

He's gotten tough love for the last 6 months since the incident, he doesn't need any more from John.

If you want to see Delmon criticized for "attitude", go watch Jim Rome.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Dec 29, 2006 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Epic!

That post was Phenomenal!

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

subject

Ahh I kind of feel bad for Delmon. If I was to drill you in the chest with a bat would you be ok with me 6 months later? How about if when I came back I was a prick to the reporters? I'm not sure why anyone feels the guy learned his lesson. Well I guess he didn't hit any more umps so he most be all reformed.

by Josh on Dec 30, 2006 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dukes

Dukes IS going to pay in the Bigs. This year. In spite of his problems he hasn't really been held back at any point nor has he been demoted (at least not in 05 or 06, not 100% sure about 04). he's going into his age 22 season and he's ready to be an impact player. Milton Bradley, Barry Bonds, Albert Belle, and others all stand as proof that teams WILL find playing time for troubled players if they're talented enough. Dukes IS talented enough.
Give him the A he's earned.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 29, 2006 6:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Actually

I remember him having to repeat Bakersfield, in 2004.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 6:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He did...

but it didn't slow his promotion rate at all. He only repeated A ball for less than half a year, then spent the other half in A+. The next year he was in AA.

Technically, you're right, he was held back, but in the long run, it didn't adversely impact his rate of advancement.

by beastball on Dec 29, 2006 9:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Question

Did he repeat Bakersfield for disciplinary reasons or because he hit .245/.338/.366 with a 130/45 k/bb ratio in 383 AB's? I don't know if there were disciplinary reasons or not, but those numbers would certainly justify having him repeat the level.
my primary point is that Dukes hasn't been held back within the organization due to his behavioral problems.

As I understand it, John's grades are based on potential and likelihood of reaching that potential. Dukes' potential is there and so far he hasn't been held back by his behavior. Thus, he deserves the A which John admits his talent warrants.

God rested one day out of 7, Felix rests 4 out of 5.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 31, 2006 3:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually...

since you mentioned it, I decided to check. From his 2004 writeup, it almost sounds as if an umpire run-in in the Sally league prompted his promotion.

"He spent a month in a team-mandated anger-management seminar following a run-in with a South Atlantic League umpire. He responded to the discipline by doing a better job controlling his emotions and performing well in high Class A."

by beastball on Dec 31, 2006 4:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dukes

Didn't repeat Bakersfield at all. He was only there a half year. He did originally get the promotion for quasi-disciplinary reasons (they wanted to separate him from the other prospects after anger management, so he was sent up a level after a fairly lackluster half at Charleston).

by Brickhaus on Jan 2, 2007 10:20 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My only complaint is

Where's Tyree Hayes? This kid has got some "stuff" and was unhittable at times in the Appy league, at the age of 17 for nearly all of his starts.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 7:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Mitch Talbot

I love the kid. I thought that was a great trade for them, getting Talbot and Zobrist for Huff. After the work Xavier has done with Talbot, I think there's an outside shot he may become a 2/3 type (originally was thinking more 3/4).

by toonsterwu on Dec 29, 2006 9:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Pitching?!

Wow. I knew the Rays system was excellent, top 3 and probably top 1, but I didn't realize it had so much pitching. Man.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 29, 2006 9:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hopefully

Some of those pictures actually pan out, luckily numbers should play on our side.

by The Rocc on Dec 29, 2006 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Elliot Johnson

I am flabbergasted to see him in the Top 20!?!?!

I know one person who is a TB homer and slightly delusional who has called Johnson "one of the best second base prospects in the game." I just don't see it. Not questioning it, because I am admittedly not too familiar with Johnson, but what is the justification for this ranking?

by Chief on Dec 29, 2006 10:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

He's top 20

It's not like John ranked him top 5.

Not to mention, he'd probably be top 10 in quite a few systems.

Posting a 790 OPS as a 2B in AA is quite impressive and the only thing Johnson needs to improve is plate discipline.

Not too many guys in the minors had double-digits in 2B, 3B, HR, and SB. If his SB% goes back to his career norms before 2006, he'll be a 15HR/30SB player in the minors.

AAA is the true challenge for him and we'll see how he does, but he's been a sleeper prospect for a lot of Devil Rays fans for a couple of years now.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Dec 29, 2006 10:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well, think about it

what's the competition like for "best second base prospects in the game" right now? kendrick's gone; it's basically what - pedroia? dewitt?

johnson seems to get a little better every year, and looks like he could be one of those pretty-good-pop, pretty-good-speed, doesn't blow your mind with any one thing type guys. i don't think it's a stretch to say he's a top-5 2B prospect, although admittedly that's more a slam on the state of 2B prospects than anything else.

by wily mo on Dec 30, 2006 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

2B / Johnson

But isn't that a pretty empty statement to begin with? Second base is a place you can move a top third base or shortstop prospect that happens to be roadblocked, in most cases, pretty easily. I just don't see Elliot Johnson becoming an impact major leaguer with anyone, let alone the ultra-deep Devil Rays...

by Chief on Dec 31, 2006 11:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's basically it

First, I'll lead off by saying I've seen Johnson on several top-10 2B prospect lists not made by Rays fans. Second, there just aren't many decent 2B prospects around. Third, he tanked at the end of the year again, for the third year in a row which tells me that he can be very good in a limited role but probably won't be a great starter for a full season. Through the end of July, he had an OPS over .900 while playing in a very heavy pitcher's league and not being old for the league. In previous years, he'd been a 50 SB guy. He'll probably end up being a good backup or a below-average starter, but considering the current crop of 2B, that's about as much potential as anyone in t6he minors who is currently playing 2B has.

by Brickhaus on Dec 31, 2006 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can see it

Royals vs. Rays in 2008 ALCS. Greinke vs. Kazmir in game 7.

That would be sweet. John Kruk would probably have a stroke.

by doublestix on Dec 30, 2006 1:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

John Kruk.

Nothing fazes him. This is the guy who predicted that Randy Johnson would win 30 games with the Yankees in '05. With a straight face. I don't think he much cares.

by abbreviatedman on Dec 30, 2006 9:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

discussion

There are alot of prospects in the Tampa org worth discussion. Too bad this just turned mainly into 100 posts arguing about Delmon and Dukes.

by natsfan2005 on Dec 30, 2006 3:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

subject

Maybe to bad for you. I enjoyed it and wasn't even part of it.

by Josh on Dec 30, 2006 6:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thoughts on Matt Walker...

I remember coming out just how sick his curveball was.

How does he look today? Does he have the same kind of arm?

Is he on anyones breakout lists for next year?

What do the Rays think of him?

He's one of the minors most interesting arms if you ask me.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 30, 2006 4:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

underrated and breakout

Matt Walker is a huge breakout guy for 2007.

Some people, including some at BA, look at him in the same light as McGee and Davis.

I personally think he's going to end up being the closer of the future in TB, but for now he's a great starting prospect with mid-90's velocity and still has that curve.

I think John slighted him a bit with a B-, but it's a matter of personal preference and probably has more to do with underrating the depth of the Rays organization (Walker, Sonnanstine, Barratt) than underrating individual players from 11-20.

Rays in '08....

by youALREADYknow on Dec 30, 2006 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One thing overlooked about Delmon

is his defense, which is good. He made several impressive plays during his time up last season, and he has a huge arm... a HUGE arm.

I said it before, but I'll ask it again, if he ends up having an Andre Dawson type career (good average, lots of HRs and RBIs, poor walk rate), is it that bad of a thing? I think Young will walk more once he gets older... he's shown a good enough eye for me to believe that. He just needs to work on his approach.

by killa3312 on Dec 30, 2006 5:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Delmon

I totally agree with this. He has a GREAT batting eye. He makes such good contact that he isn't going to walk that much. He needs to improve his approach and realize that he should only swing at those pitches which he can make HARD contact on. He's so young that I am betting he will succeed.

I even think he is one of those players ala Vernon Wells and Hanley Ramirez who basically are bored in the minors (whether its their ego or whatever) and will improve markedly in the majors.

by BaseballBrain on Jan 1, 2007 11:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

walks also come

from respect/fear of pitchers... when you hurt them enough people stop throwing you pitches to hit.. of course.. you need to be able to layoff the pitches in order to not turn that into a higher strikeout rate... Miguel Cabrera faced this for the first time last year, and answered with flying colors, improving his ability to take a walk and not press to hit everything. Its tough to tell how a hitter will develop sometimes until they face the next challenge... so far delmon has shown a weakness for plate discipline, time will tell if he can develop in this area.

"You also must admit, that outside of the facts, I made a compelling argument!"

by jbluestone on Dec 31, 2006 5:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Edwin Jackson & JP Howell

Where would these guys rank in the list of D-rays prospects? Would Jackson warrant a B or would it be lower?

by CubsFan on Jan 2, 2007 9:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

If Edwin was eligible

I'd say that he'd get a B-, just for the age and potential he has. He's fallen off and out of "options", so 2007 is a make-or-break year for him.

J.P. is a C-to-C+ prospect to me, just due to the lack of a 90's fastball. He's got good control, but he's got a BP fastball right now(he's coming off shoulder problems).

by The Rocc on Jan 3, 2007 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Back to Delmon....

Long time lerker here... I love the site and eveyone's contributions.

I contest some of the posters regression statements about Delmon. Initially I'd like to state that I have followed this kid since day one in Charleston (A). I have never had the pleasure of watching this kid play in person. However, I have listened to litterly 90% of his minor league games on the net and followed his 30 game stint with TB with intensity.

Some indicated that Delmon's PA regressed at the upper levels ...

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/Y/Delmon-Young.shtml

The above link is to his career stats: both major and minor.

In 04' in Charleston he struck out 23%, 05' in AA 20%, 05' in AAA 14%, 06' in AAA it bounced up to 19% and in 06' in TB it remained at 19%.

For those that have monitored him closely, ie; actually listened to his games, you know that the guy is tremendously aggressive in "hiiter count" situations. I can't tell you how many times he had the green light on 3-0 counts for example. What I can say with certainty is that he had the green light way more often than the red one in that exact situation.

All of his experiance thus far is for learning purposes. He'll walk plenty when he has "experianced" the various nuances of the game to the point where he and his organization feel the time is right. In other words ... Delmon can and will take a walk when he is asked to. I have no doubt in my mind.

In regard to his "regression in power". I'd bet my annual salery that it's not a matter of regression. IMO it's a matter of adjusting and working on different facets of his game. We all know the kid has power ... you don't work on things you have mastered when you have other areas to address.

My point is simple ... his walk totals don't concern me one bit and judging by his 99% concensus # 1 rated prospect in baseball last year it didn't concern any "professionals" either. There is a lot more to projecting than hitting buttons on your calculator.

My 2007 projection ... .320/.385/.525 110R's 95RBI's 25HR's 15SB's

by Forreal on Jan 6, 2007 8:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Woods Fines?

Random comment:

Woods Fines is only 21, and had a very good year last year in A-. I understand that the strength of the Tampa Bay system was too much to have him ranked, but his stats remind me of George Kontos (a personal favorite prospect of mine), with less K's. Is he as good as the stats indicate? Was 2006 a fluke? And, most importantly, would he have been a top 20 in other, less competitive systems?

This isn't a conventional comment, and Woods Fines isn't a dream prospect, but I'm interested in knowing whether or not his strong 2006 was a fluke.

by RedSoxFaithful on Jan 7, 2007 10:52 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Minor League Ball: An SB Nation Community

Network Bar

Minor League Ball -

2007 Tampa Bay Devil Rays Prospects

Comments