Jose Reyes Crystal Ball

hmm

I sure hope you didn't jinx Jose with an injury this year, John.

I guess that he sustains a significant injury in 2016, causing him to go downhill in a hurry.

"Dying is no big deal. The least of us will manage that. Living is the trick." - Red Smith

by finman on Mar 5, 2007 5:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This is the first time that I legitimately disagree with one of your CB's. Maybe it is my Mets homerism coming out, but I think Jose will a) steal more bases and b) show considerably more pop. I suppose what I'm saying is that I think that he'll have alot more of last season or what you propose as his age-25 season than he does in this crystal ball.

I realize that not all prospects pan out, but Reyes' power potential is very legitimate, and in fact, my greatest fear is that he'll fall in love in with the home run. I simply do not see this career for him. I think his future is much, much brighter.

by GuyinNY on Mar 5, 2007 5:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

much, much brighter?

please... this career would be firmly in the top 10 or 15 shortstops of all time, somewhere between barry larkin and joe cronin. that's not good enough for you? he wasn't even the best 23 year-old shortstop in his division in 2006.

by jpahk on Mar 5, 2007 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Huh?

Despite the fact I agreed with John's prediction (as you can see below), I have to wonder about the impartiality of someone making a claim like "Not even the best 23 year old SS in his division". WHAT? I mean, I give Hanley Ramirez his due, but Reyes was just a tad better in every hitting category and is considered a much better shortstop.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

meh

as you point out, they had essentially identical offensive stats. hanley put his up in a much worse lineup in a slightly more pitcher-friendly park. the statistical evidence i've seen suggests that they are both slightly above-average defenders at shortstop. i haven't seen hanley play pretty much at all, so i have nothing else to go on.

basically it's a tossup which one had the better year. i'm not even arguing that it's hanley, just that it's far from obvious. so i guess what i should have said was "he was not even clearly the best 23 year-old shortstop in his division."

by jpahk on Mar 5, 2007 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hanley vs. Reyes

That I can agree with. I don't think it's a mistake to say Hanley and Reyes seem to be on potentially similar career paths. Your restatement sounds fair to me.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 10:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't see how...

comparing Reyes to Ramirez can be used as a negative statement, but it seemed like that was your intent when you wrote it.

They both should be great. A handful of 25 HR seasons are not out of reach for either and their defense should get better as they harness their athleticism. I like Reyes slightly more because he seems to have better contact skills.

by jeck on Mar 5, 2007 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

of course it's not negative

both are terrific young players. we can all agree on that much. but the fact that there are terrific young players like this running around does suggest that maybe reyes isn't so far above the curve that we can look at a 2300-hit, 500-SB career and say his future is "much, much brighter" than that.

by jpahk on Mar 5, 2007 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Seems odd 2006 was Reyes' career year

i think it should be noted that it took Reyes until his 3rd season to put up the numbers he did last year whereas Hanley put them up in his first full season. granted reyes was awfully young in 2004. They both could use some work on defense. Reyes gooses the ball over to first too much and Hanley needs work with the glove. Neither will ever have the glove Yuni has. Then again Yuni will never have the offensive numbers they do.

by Con on Mar 6, 2007 3:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

"legitimate" power potential?

Why do so many people buy into the notion that Reyes is suddenly a big power threat?

He's too small to project much more power than he's already demonstrated, his 2006 season is still an outlier in his career, and that 19-HR performance was also boosted by a few fluke events including an inside-the-park HR.

I think it's a very reasonable crystal ball.

by FI on Mar 6, 2007 7:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yes, legitimate!

... because he's definitely shown it! He's not that small - while he's listed as 6', 175 lbs, he's still "filling out". Also reportedly came to camp this year w/ 7-8 lbs of added muscle (and has already hit 2 HRs this spring!) He's always had "gap power", as he continues to fill out and get stronger, that will continue to translate to more HR power. You could see the power blossom over the course of last season - 8 HR in 370 ABs pre all star break; 11 HR in 277 ABs post all star break, or roughly a HR/per 25 AB - over a full 600+ AB season, that's 24+ HR! Also, as a Met fan, I probably saw all of his HRs last year, and can't recall any that were "flukey" - they're most often "no doubters"! Yes, his power potential is legitimate...

by bizhouse on Mar 6, 2007 8:08 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agree...

His projection looks like more or at least equal number of hrs... However, his projected AB in 2007 looks much less which means an injury? I hope not... I see him hitting 15 to 25 homers per (healthy) year...

by louief1 on Mar 6, 2007 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

uh

Alfonso Soriano is the same size. Do you watch Reyes? He's a lot stronger than people think, which is something I said in our discussion last year too. (http://www.minorleagueball.com/comments/2006/2/28/113439/332/24#24) The 19 home runs were not a fluke, that's pretty much what he's going to do. There will probably be a couple seasons where he hits around 25, maybe more if the new Mets stadium is more hitter-friendly than Shea.

by jeck on Mar 6, 2007 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Soriano swings out of his boots

I dont really see any big power surge from Reyes. I wouldn't really see why anyone would want one. He's very good at what he does, and it really wouldn't be necessary for him to bulk up to gain power which would likely be at the expense of speed.

I think I would honestly be surprised if he hits 20 HR this year or the next.

by wildthang on Mar 6, 2007 8:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My $.02

I watch a ton of Mets games, and i can easily see Reyes jacking 25-30 in his prime. I have yet to see him hit a wall-scraper, when he hits 'em, they go. He really has a lot of wire in those wrists. I too fear him TRYING to become a power hitter, as he is so exciting to watch doing what he does now. He wouldn't need to bulk up to hit more bombs, he would just have to go for them more often. Let's hope he doesn't.
I am not saying John's CB is pessimistic, I am just stating that another version could have Jose hitting 23-28 homers per for the next 10 years.

by drwmsu1 on Mar 6, 2007 8:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Oh boy.

Brace yourself for the barrage of "John's anti-Met bias" stuff again.

I'm much more optimistic, but that is a reasonable outcome for him.

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Mar 5, 2007 5:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

As a Mets fan....

I see no problem with this CB. Obviously, I hope for more. I hope Jose's speed continues a little longer than predicted. The power seems about right to me. The only thing I would quibble with (and this is minor) is that I would think he'd get more than 4 100 run seasons, considering in his first two full seasons, he's averaged more than 100 runs scored.

Again, I hope for better but this crystal ball projection is different a decent "safety" projection.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 5:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

ERrr

I meant "definitely a decent projection".

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Dead On

I see Reyes as a very high peak player with a quick decline.

The only adjustment I would make would be the triples. I think if he stays in Shea his entire career he's going to keep ridiculously high triple totals, particularly because I think 20 homers will be a stretch for him.

Lex clavatoris designati rescindenda est.

by HuskerBob on Mar 5, 2007 5:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Citifield

The new ballpark will be CitiField, due to open in 2009. It's supposed to be a hitter's park, though I have no idea of how it will play.

As for Reyes' power...well, if you watch him regularly, you'll have little doubt that he could easily develop 25+ HR pop. He's already shown up in this year's camp bulked up, and he's showing considerably more power this spring, particularly from the right side. Again, I just hope he doesn't go Willie Mays Hayes on us.

by GuyinNY on Mar 5, 2007 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bulking up

I do worry about his bulking up. Maybe it'll be good in the long run but: a) power isn't and shouldn't be Jose's game and b) it harkens me back to all those hamstring issues he had earlier in his career.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 6:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Power

shouldn't be in his game? I have to disagree with that whole-heartedly. Stolen bases are far too over-rated. Chicks and stat heads dig the long ball.

I ate a Grand Slam @ Denny's yesterday... pooped out a 2 run double today.

by slurve on Mar 5, 2007 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Rickey Reyes?

The question isn't whether or not hitting for power is bad. The statement is that Reyes should NOT try to become a power hitter, and the reason is that he's not that type of player. He has a ton of speed, and by making contact, he'll continue getting on base and taking advantage of his speed. This mean that he'll continue to disrupt offenses and help the hitters after him. I think Reyes may just bring back the Rickey Run, with his speed (and under the tutelage of the Greatest).

If Reyes were to try and become a power hitter, it would negatively effect virtually every other aspect of his offense, and I doubt it would really improve his power numbers all that much, anyway.

by GuyinNY on Mar 5, 2007 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't look too much like a hitter's park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citi_Field

Right-center is 20 ft deeper than Shea, left-center 8 ft deeper, with the lines only about 5-8 ft shorter, and center 2 ft shorter. If anything, it seems like maybe a bit more of a pitchers park, at least with regard to homeruns. Reyes could certainly hit more triples in this park though, based on the dimensions

by andwoo on Mar 6, 2007 4:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

20?

20 will be a stretch? He hit 19 as a 23 year old.

by Rob Base on Mar 5, 2007 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BABIP

I haven't run the numbers for each season, but Reyes's projected BABIP is .290 in 2011. That seems low to me - a player with his speed should be able to do more with balls in play, especially at age 28. As I said, I haven't run the numbers for each year, but off the top of my head, I think the batting averages are low across the board. I would venture to guess that this is a systematic BABIP miscalculation as well as a general underestimation of how much contact he'll make. He's just too good an athlete to put up so many sub-.300 seasons.
Despite my criticism, I think this is a very good CB. Mets fans: the question isn't whether you think he might do better, the question is whether he is likely to do better or, rather, whether this is the likely outcome. I think it is highly unlikely that he would do better than this and I certainly don't think the data currently exists to suggest that he would.

I defend the Pedro for Delino trade.

by Nolan on Mar 5, 2007 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

so persuasive

"the question isn't whether you think he might do better, the question is whether he is likely to do better or, rather, whether this is the likely outcome. I think it is highly unlikely that he would do better than this and I certainly don't think the data currently exists to suggest that he would."

Gee, this is really persuasive.

by Rob Base on Mar 5, 2007 9:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry

...if you didn't understand it.

I defend the Pedro for Delino trade.

by Nolan on Mar 5, 2007 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you know....

....even if you don't like his argument, your "counter-argument" was the phrase "gee, this is really persuasive." Correct me if I'm wrong, but a sarcastic one-liner is significantly less persuasive (and much more deleterious to interesting debate) than anything Nolan said there. Seems like you just didn't like what Nolan said, and got too frustrated to write out a counter-argument to me, but you could prove me wrong by saying something substantive rather than just being arrogant and sarcastic.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 5, 2007 9:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thank You

I defend the Pedro for Delino trade.

by Nolan on Mar 5, 2007 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Question

I think he'll have a tad more pop. But i think this is pretty darn good.

Is this a HOF Career? I'd say with 2 Championships yes. Without them, no.

by Metty5 on Mar 5, 2007 6:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

HOF?

I dunno about that based on the projection. Maybe with about 500 more hits and 200-300 more runs scored. And, for the guys who vote based on numbers, an even 200 homers would actually matter.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 6:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting comparison

Trammell:

2365 hits 412 doubles 55 triples 185 HR 1231 runs 1003 rbi 236 sb 109 cs

Reyes CB:

2337 hits 422 doubles 139 triples 194 HR 1304 runs 969 rbi 551 SB 148 cs

Basically what you have is a faster version of Alan Trammell.... I think Tram deserves to be in the HOF discussion so this career should be as well.

by VtTigers on Mar 5, 2007 6:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

re: Tramm

Tramm played in a low offensive ERA (80's). In that context his numbers are very good. But if someone posted an identical career stat line in today's ERA it would not be as impressive nor hall worthy IMO.

by natsfan2005 on Mar 5, 2007 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Thats a good point....

Especially if you factor in the lack of offense players at SS in the 80's. Beyond Ripken there was....... I guess you could say Yount but he switched to OF around 1986.

by VtTigers on Mar 5, 2007 6:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not HOF

But John's projected career totals blow all of the Mets all-time counting stats out of the water. It is pretty sad that Ed Kranepool's name appears at (or near)the top of most of the Mets offensive top 10 lists.

"Dying is no big deal. The least of us will manage that. Living is the trick." - Red Smith

by finman on Mar 5, 2007 7:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sad but true....

Speaks to the longevity of Mets greats like Darryl Strawberry, Howard Johnson, et al. Great peaks, short careers....

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

just one thing I thought....

....I'd point out, since no one else seems to be mentioning, and I'm afraid it's because everyone's forgotten it:

In the first two years of his career, Jose Reyes tore an ankle ligament, severely strained his hamstring, and suffered a stress fracture in fibula.

Bad hamstring injuries tend to never go away, and all three injuries speak to a combination of Reyes' fragile body, combined with a Vlad-esque recklessness with his body that could lead to either significant DL time or a shortened career.

I'm not saying it will necessarily happen, but I think it should at least go into consideration as a major possibility for Reyes' career. Two years ago, many people thought he'd never stay healthy on the diamond. One good year (and two mostly healthy ones) can't totally erase those fears.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 5, 2007 7:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I don't disagree

I think the hamstring injuries were a huge problem. But they were onset by his old running style. After he missed time the Mets changed his style and he hasn't had problems since. So that type of injury doesn't bother me as much as it used to.

I just don't think 2006 was the high point of his career. That seems silly. He made huge strides in plate discipline and i only think that will improve or level out. I think this is more of a Zips like projection. With this being possibly being the Average or -15% rather. I think most would agree his ceiling is much higher.

by Metty5 on Mar 5, 2007 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He went back to his old running style

He tried the new running style, didn't like it, and went back to his old running style. But, he trained hard, developed a new workout regimine and has stuck to it. So far, it's worked. Training has taken a big step forward, and it's helped Reyes. As long as he continues to train, I imagine he'll stay fairly healthy, outside freak injuries.

by andwoo on Mar 5, 2007 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree that, should he stay healthy....

....he's likely to improve over last year, and has the possibility to put up a better career line than the one John projected for him.

I also don't think it's "crazy talk" though (like the post below this refers to it as) to say that he WILL peak earlier in life, because: 1) age-performance curves are just norms, not hard-and-fast rules, and a lot more players violate them than the average prospector cares to admit, and, 2) more importantly, given how much of Reyes' current value is tied up in his speed, he is a type of player who could potentially have a very non-traditional career path, depending on how long/to what extent he keeps his speed.

If he develops more power as he loses speed (which, I agree, is quite possible), he'll largely negate the decline in steals, runs and range on defense. If he doesn't, and the speed does go, there's no reason to think he'll get much better than when he's at his fastest, which could be now through the next few years.

p.s., You're indicating that Crystal Balls are supposed to reflect ceilings? I wasn't aware of this. I didn't think they were meant to represent ceilings, or floors, or averages, or anything else. As I understood it, they're merely one version of the player's career -- nothing more, nothing less.

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 5, 2007 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no no

You're indicating that Crystal Balls are supposed to reflect ceilings? I wasn't aware of this. I didn't think they were meant to represent ceilings, or floors, or averages, or anything else. As I understood it, they're merely one version of the player's career -- nothing more, nothing less.

I wasn't at all. I just thing that this would be on the low end scale of his career rather the high end

by Metty5 on Mar 5, 2007 8:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree

Three of the MANY issues that I have with the Jose Reyes Crystal Ball:

Lack of pitching stats for when Reyes becomes so bored with being a position player, he decides to put his arm strength to use as Billy Wagner's replacement.
No annual box office receipt totals for when Reyes tries his hand at acting. His acting style will be described as "toolsy but raw."
No asterisk noting the specific year in which Reyes finally overcomes his fear and develops his power of supersonic flight, allowing him to steal 700 bases per season.

by mrkupe on Mar 5, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Funny?

Saracsm + Internet = No.

In the name of David Wright, Jose Reyes, and Lastings Milledge. Amen.

by BlackOps on Mar 5, 2007 9:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You're useful

Someone points out that he thinks Reyes ceiling is probably higher than this and all you can do is make a vain attempt at humor. Very useful.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 10:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Response

I was referring to his comment that the Crystal Ball looks to be on the "low end" of expectations for Reyes.

He has 500 career hits right now. This Crystal Ball puts him at 2300+ for his career. He's hit 33 HRs so far. The Crystal Ball puts him at 194.

In other words, I'd say John is being very optimistic about Reyes' future. He should stick around for a while and put together some nice seasons.

Forgive me for being amused by other people.

by mrkupe on Mar 5, 2007 10:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sarcasim

Ya and all of the other crystal balls have minor leaguers and other low AB or IP players too. Reyes has more service tome than the Majority of players John does these crystal balls for. Everything written on this site is based on small sample sized and 2nd handed sources. So thanks for being as asshole.

Secondly, to believe that Reyes has potential to hit 25-30 HR instead of 15-20 isn't a crazy opinion. Thats why it is called potential. That type of opinion is no crazier than writing Hughes will win 200 games, or Gordon will hit 35 HR a season. He has far more MLB experience, and most players don't peak at 23. I don't see you're point. If a Met Fan is reasonably optimistic that you need to be a jerk about it.

by Metty5 on Mar 5, 2007 10:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

damn man

Some people are getting really catty over this.

by wildthang on Mar 6, 2007 1:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

definitely agreed

I think Reyes' high-end is probably among the 5-10 greatest SSs of all-time.

It's funny -- 10 years earlier, and I'd have gone with "3-5 greatest." What the hell happened to shortstops?

by bleedjaxblue on Mar 5, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

SS today

Players are bigger, faster, stronger and more athletic today than they were 20, even 10 years ago. The ball field dimensions have not really changed for over 100 years but the physicality of players have.

by yoda1 on Mar 6, 2007 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Crazy talk!

A significant decline starting in, and essentially spanning what are traditionally a babseball player's "prime years" (age 28-32)? Doesn't seem likely...

by bizhouse on Mar 5, 2007 7:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

i think you're confused

28-32 is the usual age when players decline from their peak.

i actually think reyes is a reasonable candidate to have already hit his peak at 23, but it's an established fact that on average, hitters peak at 27, so it's certainly not crazy to show a decline from 28 to 32. of course, any individual player could deviate wildly from the average aging profile.

by jpahk on Mar 5, 2007 9:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Players Peak

I've always understood a player's peak to take place between the years 27-32, not start declining after 27. Which makes most sense to me.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 10:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

peak

Is normally around 28-32 or so, but it varies from player to player.

by doublestix on Mar 5, 2007 10:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Peak age

Tom Tango and others have shown that a peak typically begins around 25 and starts to tail off around 29. Defense-inclusive (which a CB is not), it appears to skew even younger, though not so strongly that you'd want to change the "peak years" exactly. By 32, guys are typically in decline: Many are on the precipice. That's not universal, and it actually strikes me that Reyes is precicely the kind of player -- athletic but not miniature -- who can retain value by evolving his game as certain of his skills deteriorate. The key, as others have said, will be avoiding injury.

Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway.

by woodstein52 on Mar 7, 2007 1:27 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So, basically, John,

You're taking Hanley Ramirez on this one?

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2007/2/5/155547/7469

I went back on some old Propect Retros and found that in the "final" grades for Reyes and Ramirez, you gave them an A and a B respectively.

You said Ramirez could turn out to be an Edgar Renteria-like player. You basically rated Ramirez as such with more speed and power. While you didn't give such a comparison for Reyes, you said he was a 7-Skill player. I would assume Ramirez to be the same.

I'm just curious as to what made you change your mind (or set your mind) about Reyes and Ramirez..?

In the name of David Wright, Jose Reyes, and Lastings Milledge. Amen.

by BlackOps on Mar 5, 2007 10:16 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Comparing Crystal Balls

Looks like they're similar in their crystal balls only Hanley keeps his power longer and has a much longer career in general. Other than that, pretty similar.

I'm not sure if these crystal balls were meant to be entirely compared to each other. More of an exercise how each individual player might pan out. Although, man, I am going to love it when Hanley and Jose man the middle infield of the Mets at the same time. Who moves over to 2nd?

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 5, 2007 10:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

regardless of who was the better prospect

hanley had a much stronger rookie season than just about anybody predicted. that definitely has to change how we expect him to play going forward. it's very close between the two of them.

by jpahk on Mar 5, 2007 10:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Prospect

Jose had a .768 OPS as a 20 yo in the bigs. I'd argue that's more impressive than anything Hanley has done thus far. It also matters that Reyes makes hard contact far more consistently. That's all part of controlling teh strike zone and, ultimately, makes Reyes the better bet.

by Emad on Mar 5, 2007 11:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In 274 ABs

Sorry if I'm not too impressed.

by Yakker on Mar 6, 2007 12:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Peaked at 23

Very interesting CB. I don't know if I can think of anyone who peeked in their 3rd year in the league and then went on to play 17 more though.

I agree with someone above and think he falls in love with the HR and turns into a Corey Patterson type.

by JonH on Mar 6, 2007 8:45 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Plenty

There are lots of guys who peaked in their first few years and played forever. I think people just tend to forget how many guys peaked early because they remember what they did more recently instead.

A few guys who peaked before age 25 and went on to have long careers:
Mel Ott
Ken Griffey Jr.
Tim Raines
Cesar Cedeno
Jose Canseco
Royce Clayton
Nomar is also currently on that career track

Will Eli be showering in Evian at last?

by Brickhaus on Mar 6, 2007 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

or...

Rocky Colavito
Norm Cash
Dusty Baker
Bobby Murcer
Johnny Callison
Richie Hebner
...

by perfectdepth on Mar 6, 2007 11:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No real point to this...

Ken Griffey Jr. peaked at 27-28
Baker peaked at 31
Murcer at 26
Cesar Cedeno was almost certainly older than his listed age
Tim Raines (probably the most comparable player) peaked at 27
Norm Cash peaked at 26
Clayton peaked at 29
Colavito peaked at 27
Callison peaked at 25-26
Ott peaked at 20!!!
Nomar definitely does peak before 25, but that's the result of his injuries.

Well, there's not any real point to this other than me wanting to show that players tend to peak after 25. Actually, the only thing I took away from this very small sample size is that players generally peak in their mid-late 20's. But, most of this is moot, since we should be comparing only players who are similar to Reyes from a tools/development standpoint.

(totally arbitrary list based on physical attribtutes/tools/BBRef)
Raines - 27
Rickey Henderson - 31
Robin Yount - 26
Joe Cronin - 33
Lou Boudreau - 30

Obviously, all of these players represent a best case for Reyes, but they all had the same sort of toolsy physique that Jose has. This may be bunk science, but I would guess that assuming Reyes continues to turn his tools into skills, his natural athleticism will allow him to have a later prime than most players, and he will probably peak around 30.

by GuyinNY on Mar 6, 2007 2:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Peak

When determining a player's peak, I looked at what seemed to be the player's best season overall, looking past OPS and more towards total counting stats, BA, contact rate, and stolen bases. I also checked to see if the player recieved a Gold Glove that year, as defense is a pivotal part of a player and determining his zenith as a ballplayer.

by GuyinNY on Mar 6, 2007 2:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OK, there's the difference

I was looking at rate stats, like OPS+, WARP3 and EQA, so that's why we have different ideas of when they peaked.

Will Eli be showering in Evian at last?

by Brickhaus on Mar 6, 2007 5:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

don't forget

Cal Ripken peaked at 23, although he and Reyes don't have a whole lot in common.

by Trenchtown on Mar 6, 2007 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reyes is only the third best SS in his division

...after J-Roll and Hanley. Does anyone overrate their team and its players more than Mets fans?

by UltimateWeapon on Mar 6, 2007 8:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hahahahahahaha

That was a good joke. I mean really. Good one. Oh, wait, I didn't see any sarcasm tags.

It's funny. I've seen nothing but Mets fans either agreeing with the prediction or maybe suggesting a little more power here or there or maybe a longer career. Nothing fans of any other player's crystal ball projections have suggested. I mean, no one has said Jose will be the next Rickey Henderson (unlike fans of Scott Olson who a few suggested he will be as good as the Big Unit).

Seriously, enough with the negativity.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 6, 2007 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Hanley maybe

but after Reyes' jump in OBP Rollins got left behind. Seriously, besides a surge in power that was a.) probably a fluke and b.) still caused by a tiny park, what does he have on Reyes. I am a Braves fan but that was quite a ridiculous statement

by was385 on Mar 6, 2007 8:54 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

question

how is Rollins' power surge a fluke and Reyes' OBP surge not a fluke? Rollins actually had a better minor league walk rate than Reyes.

and I wonder if Mets fans will start talking down their own offense once they move into their new (supposedly) more hitter-friendly park.

by perfectdepth on Mar 6, 2007 9:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

J-Roll

Despite the slight OBP differential he still scored more runs than Reyes. He's got more power and is the superior defensive player as well.

by UltimateWeapon on Mar 6, 2007 9:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Not that runs means much when comparing players

But maybe you should go back and look at the numbers. Rollins scored 5(!) more runs than Reyes last year.

Whoop-dee-damn-doo. Rollins also had 55 more plate appearances then Reyes.

While you're looking at Rollins' numbers, why don't you take a look at his home/away splits too?

Home: .298/.358/.517/.875 in 358 PA
Away: .259/.312/.443/.755 in 400 PA

They're both very good players, but lets not forget that Rollins is also 4+ years older. Who would you rather have for the next 5-10 years?

"Dying is no big deal. The least of us will manage that. Living is the trick." - Red Smith

by finman on Mar 6, 2007 10:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Love how

People on here think every crystal ball ends with the guy in the HOF or they are pissed

by ScottAZ on Mar 6, 2007 9:41 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Nicely done

There are a couple of variables. Reyes' improved plate discipline in 2006 at age 22 (he was a "young" 23 last year), could reasonably portend some further improvement in that phase of the game by the time he's 30. The other variable is that it will take quite a serious injury to sideline completely a player with the broad range of talents that Reyes has in his early 30s. More often such a player moves to third base or to the outfield, and carries on a little longer and with more effectiveness than in this CB.

Still, this is a solid projection.

by Mike Green on Mar 6, 2007 9:58 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

My one big objection to this CB

...is the idea that Reyes will never steal 60 bases again. Related to that is the idea that he will stop hitting triples. Reyes is fast and likes to run.

by erich11226 on Mar 6, 2007 11:21 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

bottomline

jose WILL hit 30 hrs one day, my guess as early as '08

by robcast23 on Mar 6, 2007 3:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Good CB

as far as Reyes being "the third best SS in his division" that is possibly the least intelligent statement i have ever heard made about baseball. When i talk about players who are the "best" at their position i focus more on how much they mean to their team. take rollins or hanley out off of their respective teams and they will be hurt but both will still manage, but take reyes out of the equation and the mets are completely devastated

by revans37 on Mar 6, 2007 10:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Um . . .

While agree that Reyes is not the third-best shortstop in the NL East, to take your argument on your terms:

The New York Mets won their division by twelve games last season. Do you really think that Jose Reyes is twelve games better than some other guy the Mets could have found on the free agent market or available via trade last year? I submit that this is frankly impossible, as he did not hit like Frank Thomas or field like Ozzie Smith, let alone do both.

Meanwhile, the Phillies scrapped for a playoff spot until the last week of the season. Without Jimmy Rollins, they're a .500 team at best, and probably out of the race by August.

Hanley Ramirez was probably the best of a suprisingly exciting lot of young players for the Marlins last season, and will anchor the team if they are to be any good going forward.

As much as I object to this kind of argument to begin with, in what way, exactly, does Jose Reyes "mean more" to the Mets, a team overrun with stars young (David Wright), old (Carlos Delgado), and in-between (Carlos Beltran), than either one of these other men does to their much lower-wattage teams? I fail to see it at all.

Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway.

by woodstein52 on Mar 7, 2007 1:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Reyes

is the first of his kind. Never have we seen a player with these particular skills (ability to steal 70 and hit thirty while being able to play a more than competent shortstop. In fact, he will be the first 30/70 man. The time has come. He will only become stronger in the next few years while maintaining blinding speed with a greater knowledge of stealing bases. He will shatter the conservative projections of Mr. Sickels who projects little or no growth. Are 23 year olds not supposed to get better?

by butkussayers on Mar 6, 2007 11:54 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

yeah im kinda down on reyes too....

by wildthang on Mar 7, 2007 4:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Eric Davis . . .

hit 37 HR, drove in 100, scored 120, batted .293 and stole 50 bases for the Reds in 87. I am a huge Reyes fan, but I don't see him putting a season like that together.

"Dying is no big deal. The least of us will manage that. Living is the trick." - Red Smith

by finman on Mar 7, 2007 9:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also

Davis had 27 HR and 80 steals in 1986. Rickey had seasons of 24/80, 28/87, 28/65 (1990 MVP) and 21/53.

"Dying is no big deal. The least of us will manage that. Living is the trick." - Red Smith

by finman on Mar 7, 2007 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Optimistic

Honestly, if Jose keeps delivering more of the same (some more walks would be nice) I would be extremely happy. I don't need Jose to hit 30 homeruns. I need him to get on base and cause havok.

by Lunkwill Fook on Mar 7, 2007 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs