Ellsbury vs. Pie: Prospect Smackdown

by John Sickels on Mar 15, 2007 5:44 PM EDT in News Comment 18 comments

Prospect Smackdown: Jacoby Ellsbury vs. Felix Pie

Background and Intangibles
Ellsbury: Ellsbury was drafted by the Red Sox in the first round in 2005, 23rd overall, out of Oregon State University, where he led the Beavers to the College World Series. Signed for $1.4 million, he had a strong full-season debut in '06, playing well in the Class A Carolina League and the Double-A Eastern League. He has a good work ethic and strong makeup to back up his amateur pedigree.
Pie:Pie was signed by the Cubs out of the Dominican Republic in 2001. He made his full-season debut in the Midwest League in '03, and has made steady progress up the ladder in the Chicago system. He was erratic in '06 but strong in the second half for Triple-A Iowa. Cubs officials have good things to say about his work ethic and makeup, particularly his ability to stay positive when things don't go well.
Advantage: Ellsbury was better known as an amateur, but the comparison between a college guy and a Dominican product is hard to make in that regard. Both of them draw praise for their "intangibles". Looks even to me.

Physicality, Health, and Tools
Ellsbury: Ellsbury is a 6-1, 185 pound lefthanded hitter and thrower, born September 11, 1983. An outstanding athlete, he is an excellent defensive outfielder, although his arm is below average in strength. His speed plays well on the bases. He's shown sound contact hitting ability and gap power as a pro, along with very good strike zone judgment. His home run power is just average right now, but should improve at least slightly as he gets older. He's had no major health problems worth noting.
Pie: Pie is a 6-2, 175 pound lefthanded hitter and thrower, born February 8, 1985. Pie is an outstanding overall athlete. Like Ellsbury, his speed is a major asset on defense, but his arm is stronger (suitable for right field). He has more raw power, and more present power, than Ellsbury, but is less refined as a hitter and fielder, and needs particular work on his strike zone judgment. He missed more than half of the '05 season due to an ankle injury, but showed no ill effects last year.
Advantage: Both players are fine athletes. Ellsbury has more speed, but Pie is hardly slow. Pie has more power, more power potential, a stronger arm. Edge goes to Pie.

Performance and Polish
Ellsbury: Ellsbury's career mark is .306/.391/.427 with 64 steals in 146 games, including .308/.387/.434 last year in half a season of Double-A. His BB/K/AB ratio is excellent at 73/73/581, showing strong plate discipline. He's quite polished in most phases of the game, needing only additional power development. His MLE OPS last year was about .760 with about 30 steals and strong defense.
Pie: Pie hit .283/.341/.451 last year in Triple-A, his career mark now standing at .294/.353/.459. His BB/K/AB ratio not very good: 46/126/559 last year, and 164/438/.1945 in his career. His MLE OPS last year was about .760 with about 17 steals.
Advantage: Pie has proven himself at a higher level and has produced more power, but Ellsbury's polish and plate discipline really stand out. Although the "flavor" of their success is different, Ellsbury is more polished in more phases of the game and I will give him a slight edge here.

Projection
Ellsbury: Although some people compare him to Johnny Damon, I don't think Ellsbury will have that kind of home run power. I expect he'll develop into a .280-.300 hitter with a high on base percentage, plenty of speed, lots of doubles and triples, 10-15 homers, and strong glovework. PECOTA upside VORP is 78.6.
Pie: Some people are starting to compare Pie to Carlos Beltran. I don't think he'll be quite that good, but Pie (like Ellsbury) could develop into a .280-.300 hitter. He'll have more home run power, but his OBP and strike zone judgment could be more erratic, and I think he'll lose his speed more quickly. PECOTA upside VORP is 158.5.
Advantage: PECOTA obviously likes Pie's upside more than Ellsbury's, and this is understandable given Pie's younger age and greater power potential. PECOTA is just one system, however. I think Pie has more projection than Ellsbury and could be a more complete player, but he also has a higher risk of flaming out on us, if his strike zone judgment doesn't improve. I think PECOTA probably overstates the difference between them somewhat, but Pie does have more projection in traditional terms.

Summary
I rate them as even on background/intangibles, Pie with an edge on tools, Ellsbury with an edge on current polish, and Pie an edge on projection. Overall Pie comes out a bit ahead, which is not how I rated them in the book this year: I had Ellsbury at 21 and Pie at 22. So is the book right, or is this analysis right? Going over it in this kind of detail has led me to change my mind, and if I was doing the list again I'd swap them out, Pie moving up a notch ahead of Ellsbury. I will adjust this in the next version of the 50/50 list.

0 recs | Comment 18 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I think

that is Ellsbury was in another organization he would be looked upon a lot differently (in a negative light). Pie is the superior player in my mind.

by Terry Ryan Jr on Mar 15, 2007 7:37 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Disagree

In fact, I discount Ellsbury a tad, since one component of his game (stolen bases) has the potential to be minimized due to Boston's organizational philosophy.

Although I too would take Pie.

by Yakker on Mar 15, 2007 8:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

The Red Sox

might turn a high-percentage base-stealer loose a little more often than you think. Damon stole 30 bases twice with Boston, which not seem like so much, but he's only done it four times in his career. They do minimize the running game to some degree; that said, Ellsbury has demonstrated no ability to steal at such a high rate that any constraints they may place on him will be a disadvantage. If allowed to take off 60 times a season, he might make 20 outs; stealing more selectively he could swipe 25-30 bases while making only 8-12 outs.

Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway.

by woodstein52 on Mar 16, 2007 4:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I'm not sure about this. I agree, to a point. If Ellsbury demonstrates a high SB succcess rate, the Sox will probably turn him loose a fair bit, though probably not as much as, say, Anaheim or the Cubs.

However, I do not agree that keeping him on a leash will cause him to make better decisions about when to go. Perhaps there are studies that support this notion, but I haven't seen them. What seems more likely to me is that he will maintain a lower success rate across fewer opportunities.

On Ellsbury, my only point was that, rather than having his stature raised due to playing in a Red Sox uniform, to me, Ellsbury's a little poorer of a prospect than he would be otherwise, since one of his tools--speed on the bases--has the potential to be reduced.

Sabre stats aside, there are in-game benefits to being able to steal a base despite the fact that it may not technically be the run-maximixing move, especially late and close.

by Yakker on Mar 16, 2007 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think . . .

it might be fairer to say that his speed on the bases, at least stolen-bases-wise, isn't that much of an asset as is, because his success rate isn't that great. If turned loose less often, even if it doesn't make him choose his spots better, he'll make fewer outs on the base-paths. That's just a fact. If he played for the Angels or somebody and were allowed to try to steal 80-90 times and make 30 outs, it'd be a problem. A problem the Red Sox don't have.

At any rate, I suspect that Ellsbury may end up overrated by the media blitz that comes out of Boston combined with the fact that they don't have a lot of (any?) high-ceiling position player prospects. I have to try very hard not to wear rose-colored glasses because he comes from my home state and plays for my favorite team.

Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway.

by woodstein52 on Mar 16, 2007 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

American Legends

I wonder how much those cards will be worth ten years from now...

http://www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

www.americanlegends.blogspot.com

by JMEnglish on Mar 15, 2007 10:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury by a hair

Im much more comfortable with projecting Ellsbury. Pie strikes me as all tools/won't ever put it together and really hit enough. His upside is a poor man's Torii Hunter. The raw power is there, but his approach as a hitter is far behind Ellsbury's. I like Ellsbury's chances to complete the puzzle much better than Pie's chances. Ellsbury already has the toughest elements of hitting down, to a degree that is impressive. Pie has raw skills that are better than Ellsbury's but I see no indication he's going to get it going anytime soon.

If you had to take one, right now to play for you it would almost certainly be Ellsbury. Pie is mostly recommended by the idea that his peak could be better than Ellsbury... that's a weak argument to me... One guy is already putting it together, the other guy could be better if he ever puts it together.

by alskor on Mar 16, 2007 2:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Response

Check out Pie's splits. As the year progressed, he turned into a statistical monster. When healthy the year before in AA, he posted some big numbers.

No, he may not walk a whole lot. But he's probably going to hit enough to be a major league regular with his speed and defense anyways . . .whether he is a star or not will depend on that strike zone refinement. He's certainly making progress even as he moves up to tougher competition.

"His upside is a poor man's Torii Hunter" makes you sound like somebody who just traded Pie in a fantasy league for Josh Beckett. They fit a similar profile of "toolsy CF with impressive power potential", but at age 22 Hunter hit .231/.305/.338 in AA. At age 21 Pie hit .283/.341/.451 in AAA.

In other words, in terms of development of raw talent into baseball skills, Pie looks to be well ahead of Hunter's pace.

by mrkupe on Mar 16, 2007 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Response to response.

And I seriously doubt Pie's defense ever comes close to Hunter's. I SAID what they have in common is simply "toolsy CF with impressive power."

Frankly, it was pretty unlikely that Hunter developed into a good a player as he did. I think the odds are stacked against Pie in the same way, though he is more advanced.

Smackdown comments like that make other people think you dont know what youre talking about and have to insult people to draw attention from your weak point.

Players develop power as they age all the time(though I dont think Ellsbury will ever have that much). Its a much rarer thing to develop patience when youre a toolsy power guy in the minors with a poor approach at the plate. If Pie was going to become a patient hitter he would have shown us something by now. Its not impossible at all, and if he hit for more power I would say its likely, but he seems to be crushing flawed minor league pitchers to me.

All I was saying is that all things being equal the guy with the approach and the discipline is more likely to eventually hit for power(as in XBH, not neccesarily HRs) and hit at the Major League level than the guy who can hit some dingers in hitter friendly minor leaguers is to develop into a complete, patient hitter. Guys with Pie's type of toolset come by all the time(athletic, mashed homers in the minors), though his amount of talent is exciting.

I also think Ellsbury is likely past the injury nexus coming out of college and has shown himself more durable than Patterson... I mean Pie.

by alskor on Mar 17, 2007 2:22 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Forgive me if I don't believe you

Agreed that it's unlikely for a player like Hunter to turn into a successful major leaguer. But Hunter and Pie are pretty much uncomparable on the development path. Hunter spent three years in Double A and even then didn't come close to posting a line like Pie did there - at a younger age than Hunter, at that.

My point is not weak, in fact it is very strong. I'm not one to read too much into the stats but clearly Pie is well ahead of Hunter. He was ahead at age 18, age 19, age 20, age 21 . . .I'm noticing a trend here.

I've never heard of an "injury nexus" for position players, so . . .yeah. I wouldn't worry too much about the Cubs holding back Pie from returning when he was able to play.

Patterson at age 22, Iowa: .253/.308/.387
Pie at age 21, Iowa: .283/.341/.451

Pie is better across the board, at a younger age no less. Comparable, sure. But it's a comparison that Pie clearly comes out ahead on statistically speaking. And Pie is going to probably get at least another half season of development time in the minors.

Comparing Pie to Patterson is easy, yes, because of the circumstances. It just doesn't work for me.

by mrkupe on Mar 17, 2007 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Pie's MLE

Pie had a .792 OPS in AAA last year. How does this translate to a higher MLE (i.e. .810)? You'd think that his MLE would necessarily be lower than his minor league performance, even before correcting for the fact that Pie played in the hitter-friendly PCL.

by BLumbergh on Mar 16, 2007 2:59 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

math

I was doing my math wrong...not sure what the deal is there. His MLE OPS is about .765 or so...not sure where I got the .810 figure. Very strange. . .wish I could reconstruct it but I probably read the original PCL MLE as .892.

by John Sickels on Mar 16, 2007 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'll take...

Ellsbury, even though I'm a Cubs fan.

Pie is tantalizing and all that, but the CPatt similarities are scary right now. He's a horrible base runner, I don't trust his plate discipline all that much, and his instincts in general leave alot to be desired. He's still a very raw athlete being handled by a franchise that I love but don't trust with young talented players. He's a VERY high risk, high reward type player. He's one of those guys in the minors I think will have a ridiculously hard time adjusting to the majors.

Ellsbury has all the necessary skills to be a leadoff hitter and a CFer for 10 years. He won't be amazing, but he'll be good and solid. The only thing that pisses me off about him is that eventually he's going to be considered Boston's Eckstein. He'll get a media BJ every other day or so.

by SenorGato88 on Mar 16, 2007 3:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

"Boston's Eckstein"

Doesn't Pedroia already have that pretty well locked up?

by Yakker on Mar 16, 2007 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

CPatt Comparisons

I am glad someone else threw this out there. Regardless of statistical performance, I am going to reserve judgment until Pie plays well over a full season in the majors. Until then, he can't help but remind me of Corey Patterson.

by itshissong on Mar 16, 2007 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

defense

according to minorleaguesplits.com, ellsbury rated at about +65 plays per 150 games last year. pie came in with a +19 rating in center field. the difference is probably not that drastic, but i'm not sure john's comments really gave ellsbury the credit he deserves for his d.

by amos on Mar 16, 2007 6:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Corey PAtterson

To follow up mrkupe's point, Pie and PAtterson have similar skillsets, but Carl Crawford has a similar skillset, too. That's why analysts look at performance and not just tools. If one compares CoPat and Pie, Pie's superior BABIP will help him avoid Patterson's value killing combination of low average, low walks and high strikeouts.

As for the Pie v Ellsbury, PECOTA's ML Equivalents for 2006:

Ellsbury: .299/.369/.443/.280 Eqa
Felix Pie: .276/.327/.438/.261 Eqa

Besides age, one of the reasons Pie has better longterm PECOTA projections is that he has more ISO power, which is a better indicator of future success than even BB rate. Power helps to drive walk rates, so PECOTA expects Pie to get better in that area, while it sees Ellsbury's skills as almost maxed out.

by tom on Mar 17, 2007 4:23 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs