Thought for Johns Comment sections

by jbluestone on Dec 31, 2006 12:10 AM EST Comment 11 comments

After reading some of Kevin Goldsteins prospect writeups over at BP, I decided that I absolutely LOVE the section where he says "in a perfect world." I think this is what all of us are looking for in the end. All the other stuff is great to know.. like the background info for a cool story, but in the end, we want to know.. is this guy a possible ace, or a mid rotation innings eater, a perenial all star or a solid producer, and i think the actual sentance is much better than some letter grade or what baseball HQ is doing with a "potential ranking".. which leaves alot of room for debate becaue numbers/letters are ambiguous. I would love to see something like this from John as part of his comment sections for players.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I like the Under 25 rankings

The part that I like of Kevin's rankings is the ranking of the top 10 players in each MLB organization 25 years old or younger. For fantasy and sim players this helps to put prospects into context and is very helpful.

by Jim Gosger on Dec 31, 2006 9:30 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

yeah thats cool too

Yeah both are nice.. i just sometimes like seeing in words what they think this player is capable of.

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

by jbluestone on Dec 31, 2006 1:58 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I like the grading system

I think the practice of trying to detail the futures of prospects is kind of pretentious. It's alright to do every once in awhile to make a point, but when people start crystal balling every single prospect, it gets ridiculous in a hurry. The grading system is short and sweet. John gave a rough translation for it awhile back. The A grades are potential standout, all-star types. The B grades are potential everyday players. The C grades are potential big-league bench and role players.

by StickRat on Jan 1, 2007 3:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

No one is saying to crystal ball

Im saying a 1 line comment..

Kevin Goldstein has a section that says "in a perfect world:" and then he says something like

this for Tim Lincecum.

In a Perfect World, He Becomes: An all-star starter or an all-star closer.

compared to this for Philip Humber:
A No. 2 starter capable of winning 15-to-18 games annually with an upper-echelon team.

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

by jbluestone on Jan 1, 2007 12:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

just to add

I find that the grading system doesnt always tell u the end story... because look at comments like this for example

Jonah Bayliss, RHP, C (I like him better than this grade)

Joel Guzman, INF-OF, B (status has slipped but still very young)

I thik the Guzman example is more what I am talking about. In a perfect world, Guzman would become an all star 3rd baseman with elite power (i think most scouts would agree with that)... But He has struggles, and hasnt developed plate patientce, he is still young so he still has time to turn that around.

The B reflects more how he has performed than what his potential is.. For example I think most people would agree that Justin Upton has the highest Ceiling of any prospect in the minors.. but he doesnt get a straight A because he didnt perform, but as far as his potential he is an "A+"?

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

by jbluestone on Jan 1, 2007 12:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By 'crystal balling' i don't mean ...

the 'crystal ball' feature that John writes. Those are pretty cool, and are reserved for elite prospects.

The Guzman example is precisely what I'm talking about in terms of being pretentious. It's all in fun, but no one can tell the future, and prospects are people too. The only way to know the end story is to let the story play out. Only then can one honestly evaluate performances.

As for the grades, there is a certain amount of players' potentials that goes into them. Look at Cliff Pennington. That guy should be nowhere near a Top 20 list based on actual performance. So, potential has had some effect on the grade.

by StickRat on Jan 1, 2007 5:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I have bought his book

and pre-ordered the new one the day it was available for pre-order.

I love his descriptions... and to be honest im suprised im getting debate about this... i just think in the end.. we want to know ,what this guy can become if everything works out. Obviously no one can tell the future, and i wasnt asking him to only write this. Its just alot of times a prospect writeup will say thing like I really like this guy, he shows and advanced approach at the plate, if he progresses he should reach team x by 2008. (obviously he goes into more detail then that). But many times its just analysis of what the guys done and what he thinks of him from a trained scouts eye (which is incredibly valuable). I just think its nice to see what the scout thinks this guy can become if he is able to correct or develop certain skills.

If you want to know what im talking about check out kevin goldsteins future shock articles (he is doing the top tens currently.. even if you dont have an account the first 3 for each team are free.) Again.. i dont think that kevin goldseins writeups are better than johns.. i just happen to really like the "in a perfect world, he becomes" feature for all of his top 10s. Its nice to see something like in a perfect world he becomes a front-of the rotation starter compared to another good prospect whos "in a perfect world" comment says he becomes a strong #2 capable of winning 15 games a year on a good team.

Sometimes john makes comments like that sometimes he doesnt.(my favorite writeup last year was Josh Willingham's.. fellow book readers will know why!).

Generally speaking john will reference what he thinks of a guy (like he has a chance to be special, or he is one of the top pitching prospects in the minors now that felix graduated), which gives an idea of how he feels, but doesnt specifically say... anyway, i love what john does, i just noticed something that i liked and thought i would throw it out there... but i guess others dont like that as much as i do, or maybe people took it as a critism of something john doesnt do? and are getting defensive? Either way, i will buy his book every year and enjoy it, just thought it was a good idea.

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

by jbluestone on Jan 1, 2007 7:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Comments

I like the way the Future Shock capsules break down a prospect's potential - using both the "In a Perfect World" remark and a rating of how far he is from that potential. Those two quick blurbs give you a rough idea of the prospect's potential and risk in concrete terms.

But, everyone has their own style. I think that John's player comments usually do a pretty good job of summing up what he sees as a prospect's future as well as his chance of reaching it. I would prefer John DIDN'T add something like this, because I think it would break the flow of how he writes a little too much.

But, as long as we're making suggestions for the book...I would LOVE if the Top 20's from the website were included in the book for easy reference. :)

by fargocraig1971 on Jan 2, 2007 12:09 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

^ completely agree

As opposed to the just alpha list of players from each francise, id prefer it as top 20.

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

by jbluestone on Jan 2, 2007 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In a Perfect World...

I think that's an interesting idea, to have "in a perfect world" projections, but I really get the sense that it would just be another "tools meter". I.e. the guys who throw hard and show the most precocious power and walk rates are going to be shown as having the highest "in a perfect world" ratings. Take Jeffress, for example... he was bad in rookie ball, and yet throws 100 MPH. So, "in a perfect world", he becomes, "An ace or top-notch closer".

But "in a perfect world", Kevin Slowey turns into the next Greg Maddux, who reeled of a four-year stretch about as good as anyone in history in the middle of his HOF career. I'm not saying that Slowey is that good, but rather that most of the guys who make prospect lists have some real chance of becoming outstanding major leaguers, no matter what limits we (fans and analysts) might want to set on them.

It's a matter of percentages, but also a matter of understanding that "limited" players can sometimes exceed the limits we thought they had. Take a look at some of the prospects who have shot up the charts this year, and read the limitations which were put on them last year. Sean Rodriguez, for example, "smallish guy...steady infielder...mediocre range...excellent utility infielder down the road...C+" (from John's prospect book, 2006). This year, he blasted out 58 XBH in 455 AB, and moved up to a B+ rating. Or for a better example, go back and look at Jason Bay's old ratings in various sources. I'm sure his "in a perfect world" comments would have said, "starting OF". I'm pretty sure "Manny-lite" wasn't included in any descriptions of him!

I guess in summary, I - personally - have no use for another "MPH and HR are good" comment. The players who have tons of power, either pitching or hitting, get plenty of hype as it is. It seems redundant, for example, that John wrote "throws 100" and "high ceiling" for Eulogio De La Cruz in last year's book. Adding yet another line saying, "In a perfect world: lights-out closer, or finds control to become ace starter", would really be overkill.

by BobbyMac on Jan 3, 2007 1:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs