Travis Snider vs. Chris Marrero

by guru4u on Nov 21, 2007 4:47 PM EST Comment 25 comments

I posted this question in another thread, but since there was a little interest, I'll create a separate diary - hopefully to spark further discussion.

It seems like most people here and at other sites (e.g. Project Prospect) seem to LOVE Travis Snider. And what is there that's not to love? He is a very solid prospect in his own right.

But what really separates Snider from Chris Marrero? Our running prospect ranking list voted Snider #9, but Marrero is not even getting a sniff at #12. This seems very much like a perception issue rather than a reality issue. Here are some selected stats from the 2007 season:

AB/K Ratio:
Marrero in low-A ball: 5.69:1
Marrero in high-A ball: 4.05:1
Marrero overall: 4.68:1

Snider overall (all in low-A ball): 3.54:1

K:BB Ratio:

Snider - 129:49
Marrero - 102:46

In addition, Marrero actually displayed more power in 2007, and advanced to a level beyond low-A (where Snider was stuck all year). Snider posted a .313/.377/.525 line for a .902 OPS and .148 IsoP in low-A ball. Marrero, in low-A ball, posted a .293/.337/.545 line, for a .882 OPS and a .208 IsoP.

The stats clearly do not show the difference between the two. Scouting? Well, both were first rounders out of HS in the same year (2006). Both played the OF exclusively in 2007. From everything I read, Marrero would have been able to play above-average D out in the OF, but the Nats management team moved him to 1B to "speed up his development". Scouts are also worrying about Snider's ability to play D in the OF.

Am I missing something here? From everything I see, they had similar talent levels coming out of HS, performed similarly in their first full year of pro ball, and Marrero actually moved up a level - ahead of Snider - and looks to be slightly ahead of Snider in the development track. Snider hit for better Avg, but Marrero displayed much more power.

Could someone please tell me why they rank Snider ahead of Marrero? Is it solely based on his performance in the AFL? I just do not see anything that really separates the two.

0 recs | Comment 25 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

It could be..

that people doubt the Washington organization with Jim Bowden at the head more than they do the Blue Jays system. That being said, Bowden does in fact have a fairly impressive history with OF prospects. But I think the feeling everyone gets is that he will mess Marrero, Burgess, etc. up instead of letting them develop properly. Just a hunch.

by Havok1517 on Nov 21, 2007 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

well I agree

so I can't really tell you anything; I like Marrero just as much if not more than Snider at this point, and I really don't understand the Nats moving him to 1B. He's plenty good enough to play LF, even some RF if necessary. Unless they saw/know something we don't its a totally unnecessary move on their part, esp. coonsidering you need three OFs and only one 1B to play D ...

He's kind of a late bloomer too, I do remember going to Fl. HS playoffs, before they were drafted, and most all of us had heard of Adrian Cardenas, he was "the kid" everyone was going to see, prepare for, etc. Marrero killed us (and everyone else), ended up stealing away all of Cardenas' thunder after that. His value took a huge jump last yr, I have feeling it will do it again in '08. He could very well be the #1 guy after next season, tho' the move to 1B could hamper this some (geez that just annoys me, I was really rooting for that org.).

Mulder: Babe Ruth was an alien? Arthur Dales: sure; all the great ones were aliens.

by dew on Nov 21, 2007 4:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Um...

Marrero was considered the top prep bat in the nation coming into his senior year of high school. He wasn't an unknown stealing Cardenas's thunder. Cardenas had a great senior year that put him on the map ane Marrero had a disappointing campaign, but Marrero was always the higher rated prospect.

Reporting on Baseball from around the world! http://globalbaseball.wordpress.com

by jhelfgott on Nov 22, 2007 2:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think

it's because Snider has been a fav around here for a little while longer - since the draft really. Marrero didn't start getting more notice until he strung together some good months in the minors.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 21, 2007 5:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

My Opinion

There are a number of reasons to like Snider in my opinion (I am a biased Jays fan).

Clearly the K rate is in Marrero's favour but I think just about everything else goes to Snider. Firstly, the Sally is a much more offensive league than the MWL (arguably the most pitcher friendly league in the minors). While Snider's raw OPS appears to be only slightly better than Marrero's, in the context of his league it's significantly better. Snider's .902 OPS was the best in the league by .044 points. Marrero's .882 OPS, while clearly good, would've ranked him eleventh in the SAL.

While Marrero was promoted more aggressively (as has been a trend with the Nats considering Detwiler and that other OF they called up in September) I don't believe him to be ahead in his progress and I think that Snider's excellent AFL stint should erase any idea of that as the AFL is a higher caliber of ball than A+.

With reference to the power each displayed in 2007, Snider had 58 XBH and and his SLG % was .049 points higher than the next highest player. You've got to take league into context here.

Despite Snider's stockier stature, it would appear from the stats he has more current speed than Marrero and most scouting reports have reflected that as well. Snider is also considered to have a slightly above average arm in RF and I'm reasonably confidant he'll figure out how to be an adequate fielder at least. Marrero is already at 1B so clearly he takes another knock there.

Past performance does come into play as Snider was much better when they were in the same league. Another, probably less important statistic, is that Marrero's GB% this year was 54% whereas Snider's was 43%. They had the same LD% but Snider had weird splits in that he had a 22% LD% on the road but only 5% at home (Marrero has reverse splits, but they're closer at 17% and 9%).

In summation, while I think Marrero is a very good prospect I think for the reasons I've outlined above that Snider is clearly in another class at this point.

by GoJays7 on Nov 21, 2007 5:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

however....

....Snider had a BABIP of over .400 in the MWL. He's a great prospect, but his BB/K ratio do not support a .300 hitter, IMO. Actually, if you look at ISOP, K%, B%, etc, his year was not that much butter than Chris Parmelee. In either case, picking between Marero and Snider at this point is difficult.

by vaclipper on Nov 21, 2007 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Just to clarify

I was not trying to pick on Snider or anything. I just get the impression that people like Snider better because he was the shiny new toy on draft day and succeeded in his first pro year (i.e. did not disappoint). Most of the Snider > Marrero camp is just buying into the hype, rather than looking at the two for who they are.

I am glad to see at least one person dug a little deeper than I did to support Snider. And I agree that the MWL is a more difficult hitters league, and that the league factors do need to be taken into consideration. If anything though, it evens the two up.

To me, Snider = Marrero. It is very, very difficult to separate the two right now, yet all the hype goes to Snider and Marrero tends to get overlooked.

Anyone else care to chime in?

by guru4u on Nov 21, 2007 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Marrero vs Cardenas

Just to add, as I recall Marrero was considered the star of that team prior to their senior year and most people in the baseball world were really surprised with Cardenas play. I think a lot of people had Marrero penciled in as the best hitter from the HS class previous to that senior season in fact. If anything, Marrero's stock took a hit in 2006 and has really recouped that and more this year.

by GoJays7 on Nov 21, 2007 6:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Snyder vs Marrero

Throw me in the camp that likes Marrero better. To refute some of the points above;

Ks are either the first or the second most important indicator, the other being homerun rate. Marrero wins both, even accounting for league context.

Marrero was promoted more aggresively, which means he's had sucess at a higher level, which means he's less risky and closer to the show. If two prospects have even ceilings (they do), and even floors (they don't, Marrero's is higher), then the one closest to the show is the better prospect. In this case, since niether has had any work above A+, it's close, but an edge to Marrero nonetheless.

Marrero had 51 XBHs playing half of his age 18 season games in high A. That's more impressive than what Snider did.

I don't know why people bother to mention groundballs. They are better than flyballs except the times that the flyball gets out of the park. Despite the fact that he hit less flyballs, Marrero hit more homeruns! Snider's flyball edge is only 128-122 due to the strikeouts, but that still makes thier HR/FB%, Marrero 18.9%, Snider 12.6%. League context likely doesn't account for the 50% difference, and even if it did, Marrero is seven months younger and played half his games at a higher level.

A few other points;

Marrero is seven months younger. That helps neutralize some of the league context, and his midseason promotion wipes out the rest and then some.

Sider was more lucky. Taking their batted ball ratios and giving them average BABIP distribution (for MLB);

Snider-.235/.305/.447, OPS .753,
Marrero-.273/.333/.483, OPS, .815,

So when you take out the luck, Snider was 8.1% better than his league average and Marrero was 11.1% better than his league.

Travis Snider is rated ahead of Chris Marrero for one reason and one reason only: because he was rated higher to start the year. He earned it last year and their rookie league performances narrow the gap a little. At this point, not only should they be rated closer than they are by the consensus, but Chris Marrero is better prospect between the two!

by rwperu34 on Nov 21, 2007 7:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Matthew Sweeney

One more quickie. Matthew Sweeney played in the same league and is two months younger than Snider. His luck adjusted line;

.254/.315/.452, ops .767, +10.2%,

by rwperu34 on Nov 21, 2007 7:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Snider/Marrero

I don't buy the argument that Marrero is more advanced than Snider based on a "successful" stint in A+ where his K rate returned to 20%+ and had a .769 OPS. As I already mentioned, Washington promotes their prospects aggressively and not necessarily because they merit the promotion so much. What did Marrero do in the SAL to deserve being promoted that Snider didn't? The Blue Jays are more conservative with their promotions so it is being held against Snider? While I don't think AFL numbers are the be-all end-all, you don't even mention them when the AFL is widely considered to be a level more advanced than A+.

As for league context, I don't think the age difference (exactly 5 months rather than the 7 stated previously) or the world-beating performance at A+ erase that. The average OPS in the MWL was .696. The average OPS in the SAL was .735 and the average OPS in the Carolina League was .732. The average XBH% of the MWL was a minor league low 6.6%, the average XBH% of the SAL and Carolina League were 7.4% and 7.3%.

While Marrero easily bested Snider in HR performance this year I think you're underrating his power at this point. In the GCL the previous year he hit 11 HR in only 196AB and this year he out XBH'd Marrero 58 to 51 (in 30 or so fewer ABs) despite the 9 HR defecit. Snider's XBH% was 11% and his XBH+ was 170, Marrero's was 12% in the SAL but that only registered a XBH+ of 156 in that league. I think all of this is indicative that to this point Snider has better power (especially since he has gone on a HR binge in August & the AFL, 11 HRs combined and as a young player, that step forward is more likely to be real). That fact combined with his better FB% should translate to more HRs and XBHs in the future. Marrero having a higher HR/FB ratio is to me an argument that he might regress in that regard or more likely that Snider will catch up.

Finally, you fail to mention that BABIP is considered by most to be somewhat of a skill for hitters. Now, a BABIP of .400 is not going to be realistic going forward but to assume that they'll hit for the same BABIP going forward when Snider has not hit for a BABIP less than the .382 he hit last year in the GCL (higher in MWL and AFL) is not fair. It's possible that they could hit for the same, but to this point Snider has shown to be significantly better than Marrero in this regard.

I do agree that Snider's Ks are a concern and could significantly hamper his performance in the future (if you don't like his BABIPs in the GCL or MWL, don't even look at the AFL) but I'm hopeful that he can reign that in, and even without doing so is a great prospect. Just look at a guy he is currently compared to by many, Jay Bruce, and his K rates and previous season's numbers.

I don't think that will have convinced you because you seem to be a very staunch Marrero supporter so I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

by GoJays7 on Nov 21, 2007 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re:snider/marrero

THe biggest problem with Snider at this point is 25.3. That's the % of plate appearances that he whiffed. Marrero was at 16.3% in A ball, so really, he earned the promotion. Basically, he forced the Nats to be aggresive.

Even if Snider was only held down by a conservative apprach, that would lower his value. The furthur away from the bigs, the less valuable the prospect. A win tomorrow isn't as valuable as a win today, much like $1 tomorrow isn't as valuable as $1 today. Also, since Marrero has passed the A+ test, it's one less chance for to fail, compared to Snider. The less chance for failure, the higher the value.

BABIP is a skill for hitters and I factored that into my equation. A certain % of GB, FB, and LD in play are going to go for hits with high power and high speed leading to more groundball hits. All that gets plugged into the formula and factored in.

by rwperu34 on Nov 21, 2007 11:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BABIP

is a skill to the extent that it reflects tendencies of the hitter. Line drives fall for hits at a high rate, followed by ground balls (also affected by speed) and then fly balls. However, even the most elite contact hitters (Ichiro and Jeter)have BABIP's only around .350 (the average is around .300) Jeter and Ichiro are elite contact hitters who hit a VERY high percentage of balls on the ground (around 60%) and are consistently around 20% line drive rates. Snider had a GB rate of 43% and a LD rate of just 14%. He also struck out a lot. He just does not profile as a high average hitter or someone who will generate above average BABIPs.

I had a tough time finding comparable hitters at the major league level (high ks, low walks, power, and high BABIP). However, if you don't look for high BABIP, you'll find guys like Soriano, Inge, Uribe, and Bill Hall.

So, Snider is a very very good prospect, but I just don't think his batting average will hold up unless he greatly improves his approach at the plate.

by vaclipper on Nov 22, 2007 12:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I know I've discussed this before..

but people keep using %LD and %GB as data points to examine the quality of a hitter, and I've done some moderate investigation into both those stats and don't see that they have any predictive value at all, nor do they have any correlation with present performance.

Guys with high %LD are all along the prospect and performance spectrum, they neither tend to be high on the scale or low. The top prospect in the game last year had a worse %LD than the guy with the lowest OPS in the IL.

I know I made a diary about this maybe 6 months ago, and sometimes I mention it as people use those data points as a way to argue a point. But my question is, does anyone have any evidence that these data points are really useful?

I understand that %GB is good for pitchers. I'll also admit that it SEEMS like it should be useful for hitters, but I've yet to see a shred of evidence to back that up. You could line up a set of hitters, only give me their %LD and %GB, and I wouldn't know how they performed that year, or how they would perform next year, or if they were top prospects or non-prospects, so I have to question the usefulness of those stats.

I'm not arguing against these data points arbitrarily, as I'd love another set of data points to use to examine hitters. I just want someone to demonstrate to me that they have some value, either in examining present performance or predicting future performance.

by beastball on Nov 22, 2007 10:02 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice work artie

I've been thinking of raising similar questions. Looking at numbers for prospects is important, but I think people are getting a little carried away with it around here lately - it seems as though many are coming up with numbers that fit an arguement one way or the other and are just blowing right by scouting along the way.

Send your top 50-100 prospects to slurveone@yahoo.com!!!

by slurve on Nov 22, 2007 10:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The Problem...

is variance. The luck adjusted stats have to be used as a tool, not the be all end all. I know I chirp about them quite a bit, but it's only a piece of the puzzle. The two numbers I look at most closely are HR% and K%, because those stabalize the quickest and are the best indicators as far as stats go. BB% is a clear third. LD% is very volitale for hitters, perhaps directly proportional to BABIP;) In the Snider debate, I use it as a tool to show that his peripheral stats don't support a high BABIP, not so much that he won't have one down the way. He could be a 20% LD hitter that just had a bad year. Of course the chance that he's a 14% LD hitter are much higher if he only hits 14% LDs, so that all has to be wieghted.

A big thing that gets lost is the BABIPs in the low minors are not only going to be higher, they are going to be more volitale as well. One year a league might have a bunch of slick fielding MI (which keeps the league OPS down in two ways) and the next it might have a bunch of bopping slow oafs up the middle.

There is some research out there, but most of it is for the major league level. One thing I'll say is, I did a work up for my fantasy team iat the end of 2007, and you'd be suprised how much closer the stats were when I took the batted ball data rather than just giving a blanket BABIP.

by rwperu34 on Nov 22, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again...

I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I've never been able to detect a connection between the %LD or %GB and performance, and that BABIP doesn't seem to be a stat that is useful to compare to league-wide performance. It seems like a stat that is more useful to evaluate a player's internal consistency.

I use %XBH, BB/PA, K/PA, then I check age v comp and performance vs league. OPS and other stats are the ones I look at last because they can be distorted by singles too much, which I do think can be luck driven. The only smear on his performance is K/PA, which is high, but since its his first full year, it's just something to watch. Very few people have flawless performances in this first full year (well, everyone this side of De Los Santos that is! HA).

So I still don't see any reason to be particularly concerned about Snider. I think his high BABIP could be luck or it could more likely indicate his ability to hit for high average when you consider he consistently had a high BABIP from month to month and the scouts rave about his hitting ability.

by beastball on Nov 22, 2007 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

idk

how you are comparing Sweeney to Snider

Felix for Cy Young.

by King Felix 21 on Nov 21, 2007 7:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Sweeney/Snider

I just wanted to point out that Snider didn't produce the best luck adjusted line for a 19 y/o in his league. Plus, any time I can drop support for Sweeney, I like to;)

by rwperu34 on Nov 21, 2007 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs