Billy Rowell...

by Rupe34 on Dec 28, 2007 11:20 PM EST Comment 18 comments

Why doesn't he get any love? At one time he was a highly regarded prospect. Now he has been removed from most peoples top 50. I don't get why though.

He's been young for his league. In fact i think he is still younger than some of this yrs HS class. Personally, i think he has accomplished quiet a bit. I know some question his attitude. Hell, I question every kid 14-19. They don't understand life.

I just don't see why people doubt him so much. His power is amazing, he has stayed at 3rd (not for sure how much longer though), He can hit for average, he still sounds like a middle of the order bat.

If you've seen him play give some input. I would love to know why this board hates him so much.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Rowell

First of all, I don't think people on this board hate Rowell. Travis Snider and Chris Marrero, also HS draftees from 2006 put up much stronger numbers so they would tend to be ranked higher at this point.

I saw Rowell on TV last summer. For some reason, a Delmarva game was on a DirectTV channel so I watched for awhile. Rowell really stood out from the other players because of his size and obvious athleticism. He is taller and lankier looking than I expected and that makes him look a bit awkward at the plate. It may make it difficult for him to stay at 3B too. I like Rowell a lot and think he has a huge ceiling. I expect him to develop a bit more slowly than similar age players like Snider and Marrero though.

by DrBGiantsfan on Dec 28, 2007 11:17 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rowell

I agree that it seems he's being unfairly downgraded. People question his ability to stay at 3B, but I saw him play once this year and he looked very good. Smooth and all his throws were rt on the money. Made at least 1 sparkling defensive play. Looked to me like he can stick there easily. And while he didnt have a breakout year, he held his own in a league he was about 2 years young for. Just turned 19 in Sept. Plate discipline could use some work, but likewise for many hitters ranked above him, including Jay Bruce. Was ranked in the 40-50 range last year and I see no reason why he shouldnt be at least in that same range this year.

Free Billy Rowell!

by rhd on Dec 28, 2007 11:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Response

Have not seen him play, but here's some stuff.

He never should've been considered a top 50 type prospect in the first place, and was only considered as such due to draft slot and largely meaningless short-season ball statistics.

He's still a very intriguing prospect obviously, but he's done nothing to fix the weaknesses in his game from last year. He remains a very raw player with major questions about strike zone judgment on the offensive side of the game and he now seems a lock to move to 1B/corner OF in the long-term.

I think he's probably a B- prospect at this point, maybe a C+ but I think that's being a bit harsh. That makes him a nice prospect but it leaves him well outside elite prospect considerations for the moment unless you're really big on upside.

by mrkupe on Dec 28, 2007 11:22 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Funny

How a aomw think a player is being dissed if he isnt in the top 50 but, top 50 means a guy is around a consensus second best player in an average system no? Well. at this point Rowell isnt that in Baltimore and I'd say he might average out as a 5th best prospect on an average team... which puts him around 150 doesnt it?

Thats just based on "evidence" though. There is still a chance he'll end up the best player currently in the Orioles farm system some day but, I'd bet on Wieters myself.

by casejud on Dec 28, 2007 11:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Re: Funny...

Still don't see how he would be top 150. He was top 50 last yr.
This is my point. No love for Rowell.

He hasn;t dropped 100 slots in one yr.

NO LOVE FOR BILLY

The Reds are finally making a move!

by Rupe34 on Dec 29, 2007 6:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rowell

He and Wieters are 1/2 for Baltimore. I don't know how far ahead Wieters should be given that he was the #5 overall pick and has yet to play a regular season game with a wood bat and Rowell was the #9 overall pick and held his own as an 18yo in A ball.

Rowell looks like a guy that could rank anywhere from 35-70 and have it be reasonable.

by rwperu34 on Dec 28, 2007 11:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jeez man

Un-be-lievable....

So College ball doesnt count for ANYTHING anymore dude!?

I understand the scepticism to a degree but, do you realize that Wieters would likely have hit a LOT more than Rowell did in the Sally League as a 21 year old last year.

You really think Rowell has played at a higher level of baseball than Wieters? If that is the case you should just sau what you think...Wieters is no good... or is it that nothing really matters in life unless you are getting paid for it? You realize guys come to the big leagues from College ball almost every year right? Zimmerman... Lincecum... The way people treat college stats and players on here is inane to me.

No worries, not mad at ya but, anybody want to answer the question? If Jeff Zimmerman can go straight to tg=he big leagues from the ACC and NOBODY has ever gone from HS to the big leagues (Yount, okay)... what exactly is the equivalent level for a top conference to a minor league? I'd say ACC is above the SAL League myself but, some act like it doesnt even count at all.

by casejud on Dec 29, 2007 1:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

I'd say most of the major college conferences are around low-A ball in terms of talent and opposition. I think the big knock on college players is that they are usually older when they see the majors than a stud HS player that takes 2 or 3 years to see the majors. So, you start your MLB career at possibly 20 or 21 while facing major league talent in the minors compared to starting your MLB career at 23 or 24 for most college draftees.

by Havok1517 on Dec 29, 2007 1:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

They arent...

... facing better talent in the low minors. college players have a very good record compared to HS players and its BECAUSE the level of play in college is so high. Its a falacy to even suggest that the college player loses anything in development to a HS player. The numbers and even logic doesnt back it up. So people should stop saying it but, they wont. Its the same thing "player x.y.z cant be considered because he hasnt played "PRO-BALL" " as soon as he gets one guy out in the Cal-League or something...shazam!...hes magically legitimized. I'm gonna do a study someday but, I'd bet you can take good college conference pitching stats and roughly translate them to wood-bat, Cal League numbers. If people understood this to be true there wouldn't be so many people doubting or questioning what David Price has already done.

by casejud on Dec 29, 2007 1:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Response

Personally, I think one of the next great leaps in sabermetrics will be a reasonably satisfactory model of translating college statistics into MiLBEs. It seems like only a matter of time - certainly, major league teams would be interested in such data, given the amount of money they're now pouring into draft picks.

by mrkupe on Dec 29, 2007 2:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see it

The problem is, even within the big conferences, teams have varying degrees of SOS. Keep in mind, BP doesn't even do MLE for the short season leagues.

by rwperu34 on Dec 29, 2007 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

straight to the majors

here's my question - who's jeff zimmerman?

by wily mo on Dec 29, 2007 3:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ranger

Reliever of late 90's...duh! Ha ha ha...my bad.

by casejud on Dec 29, 2007 4:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

College Draftees

Lots of stuff to go over here.

First, let's tackle David Price. He's a different animal. #1 overall picks have significantly more value than a #2 overall pick. Price is a top prospect not because of the stats he put up in the SEC, but because scouts believed enough in him to make him a consensous #1 overall pick. He's also a pitcher, and it should be obvious why a pitcher would have a shorter transition time than a hitter.

Now, on to Wieters. Whether he's lost anything in development by going to college is up for debate. His junior numbers were not significantly better than his freshman numbers, so in his specific case, he might have been better off signing out of high school.

It's doubtfull the big conferences are at the level of the Cal league. How many college players start out at that level? How many flame out before they reach that level? Most college players will go to rk or A-, and many will never make it to AA. That's not even counting the ones that don't ever play pro ball. It's only the best that start as high as A+ and the super elite in AA.

Zimmerman signed quickly then raked for 250 at bats in AA. He is not a good comp for Wieters. What about Drew Stubbs? He was a top 10 pick from a big conference and he really struggled in his debut.

The stats in college hardly count for anything. You must listen to the scouts. I'd say you put as much weight on SEC/ACC/Pac 10 stats as A-. That's about nil.

Would he have hit better than Rowell if he played in the SAL this year? I should hope so. He's three years older. The question is, would Wieters have hit as well in AAA? That's a more realistic ARL.

As for Wieters and his prospect status, do you think a guy who hit 10 HR as a 21yo with a metal bat doesn't have some questions about how his power will translate to wood? He struck out ~15% of the time. Do you think that number will go up or down in the minors?

College player DO have to prove themselves. I'm sure if we went back through drafts of the past, we would find plenty of busts and plenty others that turned out different than expected.

Random draft, 2003, college position players;

Richie Weeks-living up to expectation
Michael Aubrey-not so much, looks like an injury
Aarron Hill-Looks good
Brian Anderson-not so much
David Murphey-not so much
Brad Snyder-looks like a quad A player at best
Connor Jackson-looks good

by rwperu34 on Dec 29, 2007 2:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rany Jazeyerli

I think before you dig into the success rate of college players in the draft, you might want to look up his article on HS vs Coll draft picks from a few years ago. Hat tip to futureredbirds.com for dragging this out of the dustbin earlier today.

by siddfynch on Dec 29, 2007 3:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

I read the whole installment. The one conclusion that I was able to draw is, my plan of rating draft picks based on EV of draft slot and position is out the window. The market just moves too much to do that.

by rwperu34 on Dec 29, 2007 2:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Okay

Thats not exactly what i expected your comment to be assuming you read that article...more like...

I'm sorry, there appears to be NO evidence that ANYBODY loses any ANYTHING as far as development as a big leaguer.

Pretty astounding information really isnt it? I think if people really understood that the players that spend 3 years playing college ball turn out to be SIGNIFICANTLY better than the ones who spent 3 years in a minor league system that would effect the way they think.

Maybe we should be questioning a minor leaguer becuase he never played COLLEGE ball instead of the other way around? I wonde if this is caused by the quality of the player OR the percentage of time that a HS drafties is damaged in the minors. Anybody have an idea or do you just accept that College programs develop players better than the minor leagues?

by casejud on Dec 29, 2007 3:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It's selection bias

The reason college players have an edge is because scouts have three extra years to weed out the garbage before they put them in a professional setting. That should be obvious. Whether going to college affects an individual's development is still up for debate, but that's not the issue here. We are not comparing a college draftee to a high school draftee. What I'd like to know is how college draftees fair against an 18 yo that put up decent numbers in A-ball? Or any minor leaguer for that matter.

by rwperu34 on Dec 29, 2007 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs