Evan Longoria...

by killa3312 on May 13, 2007 8:03 PM EDT Comment 34 comments

hitting .320/.439/.594 (1.033 OPS) in AA so far. He leads the league in RBIs and is tied for the league lead in HRs. Also has a very respectable 24/27 BB/K rate thus far.

He still hasn't proven it at the major league level yet, but this kid looks a hell of a lot better, potentially, than the Joe Rando comparisons that were being thrown around at draft time. Is he a top 5 prospect entering next season?

0 recs | Comment 34 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Absolutely

Some people are beginning to like him more than Gordon. I think Longoria is a .310 25-30 HR hitter in the majors. Think David Wright without the NY popularity.

by Bravesin07 on May 13, 2007 8:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

More Power

I think he has more Raw power than wright personally

by Metty5 on May 14, 2007 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Longoria

I think he's the 2nd best prospect in the game behind Upton. At this point, I think he's going to be a better hitter than Alex Gordon. He's younger, putting up similar (although slightly better numbers in the same league), with a better K/BB ratio. He's both striking out less and walking more that Gordon.

Now, Gordon does other things better than Longoria. He's more athletic, will probably be a better defender (although Longoria should be above-average), and will steal you more bases, but I honestly believe he's going to be a slightly better hitter. I think long term, they'll hit for similar power, with Longoria hitting for a higher average and OBP because I think he'll walk more and K less.

by Tyler on May 13, 2007 9:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

heh

Longoria is a nice prospect no doubt, and it's very encouraging what he's done with his peripherals this year. He's erasing some of the pangs of regret I had about listing him so high last year (I worried I put too much stock in too little data). He looks like he's going to be a good major leaguer.

But Alex Gordon is still an elite, elite talent. Much more so than Longoria. Gordon has a pedigree for massive power, discipline, and batting average. Thrown straight to AA, he dominated. A month and change of major league struggles hasn't erased those skills.

I always laugh a little when I see posts like this. Gordon was hitter 1B in a stacked draft, Longoria was seen as a reluctant top hitter. This means that the burden of proof is on Longoria. And a month of Gordon's MLB struggles plus Longoria's AA dominance hasn't proved anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

by limozeen on May 13, 2007 10:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Hold on

I'm comparing straight AA stats here. Not factoring in ML performance at all. Longoria was 20 last season when he was drafted, and proceeded to dominate his way to AA, and more than held his own in AA (again, if you include the playoffs his OPS was over .800 in AA and showed tremendous power).

He's now 21 in AA, a year younger than Gordon, in a worse hitter league (SL vs. TL), and putting up better stats with better periferals. I don't know how you can say Longoria isn't an elite elite talent.

Let's break it down:

XBH rate:
Longoria: 1 every 7.5 ab's
Gordon: 1 every 7.0 ab's

HR rate:
Longoria: 1 every 14.2 ab's
Gordon: 1 every 16.76 ab's

K rate:
Longoria: 1 every 5.8 PA
Gordon: 1 every 5.1 PA

BB rate:
Longoria: 1 every 6.5 PA
Gordon: 1 every 8 PA

Explain to me again how Gordon is a better hitter than Longoria? Longoria's doing it in a worse hitting league at a younger age, and doing it better than Gordon. I think he's passed the burden of proof, and is only behind the only player who was rated ahead of Gordon in that draft you're speaking of.

by Tyler on May 13, 2007 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now

Let me clarify myself here. I'm not saying that Longoria is clearly a better prospect than Gordon, but you make it seem like it's not close, and it is very close. I'd give the edge to Longoria in the hitting department because of league context and age relative to league and performance. As I said earlier, Gordon does a few things better than Longoria, but hitting isn't one of them IMO.

If I were comparing them, I think Longoria will end up hitting for a higher average and OBP, I think power will be virtually a push. Gordon will be a better defender (although Longoria is above-average) and will steal more base (Longoria doesn't run at all). Gordon is also the better athlete.

by Tyler on May 13, 2007 11:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

well,

remember, Gordon really turned it on in july/august last year

77/218 - .353
17 doubles,
19 hr,

by god allah star on May 13, 2007 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sample size

I'm not sure how well Longoria will hold up on these comparisons over a couple hundred more at bats. Also, I don't think most people realize what a huge difference in league park factors there is between Texas and Southern.

Will Eli be showering in Evian at last?

by Brickhaus on May 13, 2007 11:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Sample Size

You could make the same argument about Gordon's hot month's late in the year though.

by Metty5 on May 14, 2007 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well

You're getting Longoria's numbers after a bit of a hot streak.

Right now, it's pretty tough to compare the two directly and convince me of anything definitive...except that the Longoria is very legit, and looks like he could but up the kind of numbers Gordon did last year - but he'd have to keep this up all season.

by siddfynch on May 14, 2007 2:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

um

You've got a pretty lenient burden of proof, my friend.

by limozeen on May 14, 2007 3:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I do?

A year and 8 months younger, worse hitting league, outperforming him. High profile draft pick himself, very highly regarded by scouts coming into the year (ranked 7th by BA), great stats at every stop in the minors. I think that's a ton of proof that he's in his class as a prospect. If you don't, then that's your opinion and I can't change that, but I ask you why?

You give Gordon credit for being "thrown" straight into AA. But don't give Longoria credit for outhitting him, at a signifigantly younger age. Longoria wasn't thrown into AA, but his OPS was .957 across the 3 levels of pro baseball he played at last season. At the same age (actually he was 8 months older at the time), Gordon was putting up a .921 OPS in college.

by Tyler on May 14, 2007 6:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yeah

If you compared Gordon's best two months to Longoria's current pace, it'd be a different ballgame. It's nice to be hot, it's nicer to be consistent.

by limozeen on May 14, 2007 7:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

"nice to be hot"?

you know, this is what people were saying about longoria last year, too: "ok sure he hit all those home runs, but it was just a hot streak." so, apparently last season was just a hot streak, and now this season is just another hot streak. here's my question: when is longoria not hot? he's hot compared to what?

by wily mo on May 14, 2007 10:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Consistent?

What do you want from him? Again, last season, he signifigantly outperformed Gordon's 21 year old season in college, in both his college and pros seasons. He's done nothing but rake his entire pro career. I don't know how he could possibly be more consistent.

He's been "hot" his entire career so far save a one month stint in AA at 20, and he caught fire in the playoffs and made his line look a whole lot more respectable.

You also might want to check Longoria's splits before you compare his current pace to Gordon's. Because his May so far has been better than Gordon's July or August (I know it's only the middle of the month), and is getting better today. As of yesterday his OPS this month was 1.185.

by Tyler on May 14, 2007 10:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

I'm sorry, but a hot month is not enough for me to put Longoria ahead of the consensus top prospect in the game. I love Longoria and he's proving that he's for real this year, but that has nothing to do with his rating in relation to Gordon.

by limozeen on May 15, 2007 12:12 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Explaing to me

What Alex Gordon does better than Longoria offensively? Both project as .300 hitters, both have 30+ homerun power. Gordon has 2 things going for him that Longoria doesn't have in terms of offensive stats. The first is the ability to steal bases. The second is time. Longoria was drafted last year, Gordon was drafted 2 years ago, he's got a larger sample size. That's it.

Is there really that much difference between a guy ranked as the (for arguement sake, leave Dice-K out of it) #1 prospect and #6 prospect in the game in terms of tools?? Is it that much of a stretch that Longoria has at least caught him in terms of prospect status when he's dominating AA at a similar, albiet with bettter stats than Gordon did last season despite being almost a year younger than Gordon when he reached AA and playing in a signifigantly more pitching friendly environment?

Sorry, but I don't see it as a strech at all considering what Longoria has done in the past and present.

by Tyler on May 15, 2007 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

dude

Gordon projects to have lots of power. Longoria was compared to Joe Randa coming out of college. Obviously he's not Joe Randa, but I don't buy him as a consistent 30 HR threat yet.

Longoria came more out of nowhere than Gordon did, so Longoria's got more to prove. It's not "just" sample size...it's that Gordon confirmed what everyone already knew in AA, but we didn't know that Longoria was this good, and he's got to prove it. A hot month is not proof!

by limozeen on May 15, 2007 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

You're right, a hot month doesn't prove anything, you keep saying that. But what I'm trying to tell you is that it's more. I've cited stat after stat that pretty much back up what I'm saying, Longoria has a ton of power. Scouts say it, people who watch him say it. His numbers say it. But you won't believe me. So I cite one more stat.

Evan Longoria after tonight has 266 at bats in AA if you include the playoffs last year (which I did, you keep asking for more sample size). At least a half seasons worth of stats. In those 266 at bats, Longoria has a batting average of .308 and a SLG % of .579.

Gordon in AA has a BA of .325 and a SLG% of .588

IsoP:
Gordon: .263
Longoria: .271

I'm going back to this again, because it's very relavant, but you keep ignoring it. Despite being younger and in a pitchers league, he has a better IsoP that Gordon. He's not only matched Gordon's power, but shown slightly more. And not just over a small sample size. This is over a half season of play in AA. We're not talking about a fluke week or month. We're talking 3+ months of evidence. He's got 19 homeruns in 266 at bats in AA. If that's not legit power, I don't know what is. That's almost a 40 homerun pace projected out onto 550 at bats.

Scouts love him. BA says he's got 30+ homerun power, the potential to his for a .300 average ranked him in the Top 10 prospects in all the game last year. Jim Tocco, the Biscuits play by play man says he's the best player he's seen play for the Biscuits. The same Biscuits that had Delmon Young, Reid Brignac, Elijah Dukes, Wes Bankston (when he was a good prospect).

I don't know what's going to make you see that it's not a fluke or really a small sample size at all. He's shown that he's got the goods and is right there with AG in terms of prospect status. And 134 of those AA at bats I included came when he was almost a year an a half younger than Gordon was when he first played in AA, so they look even better when you consider his youth in there.

by Tyler on May 15, 2007 2:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

IsoP:
Gordon: .263
Longoria: .271

I'm going back to this again, because it's very relavant, but you keep ignoring it. Despite being younger and in a pitchers league, he has a better IsoP that Gordon.

An ISO of .271 really isn't any better than .263. From a statistical significance there just roughly equal.

Proud Hokie, Class of '98

by natsfan2005 on May 15, 2007 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

yes but ...

If you measured the percentage of extra base hits as a portion of hits (instead of as a percentile of at-bats) you will get different numbers.

I'm not sure which is better. I believe they are both relevant.

by pedrophile on May 15, 2007 11:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

It is better

I'm not argueing that Longoria is clearly a better prospect, or has tons more power, but limozeen was argueing that Gordon has elite power, and Longoria hasn't shown the power of enough of a sample size for him to be compared to Gordon yet. And I'm argueing that, in fact he has shown power over a fairly signifigant sample size, enough of one to show that in fact Longoria does have very similar power potential to Gordon.

by Tyler on May 15, 2007 1:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

"A year and 8 months younger, worse hitting league, outperforming him."

"You give Gordon credit for being "thrown" straight into AA. But don't give Longoria credit for outhitting him, at a signifigantly younger age."

Is Longoria a 1 year and 8 months younger than Gordon? Sure. But what relevance does that extra year have? You are comparing Gordon's 2006 he put up when he was a year younger than he is now to Longoria in 2007. The age difference for performance comparison purposes is truly just 8 months. You're misusing age information intentionally to try to frame Longoria as being relatively much younger to Gordon. This is disingenuous.

"At the same age (actually he was 8 months older at the time), Gordon was putting up a .921 OPS in college."

Huh? First off, when Gordon was a junior and just 8 months older he posted a .372/.518/.715 line. How does that add up to just .921? I get 1.233 when i add that up. Secondly, it's also as if you're trying to frame as if Longoria is way ahead of Gordon's pace. Gordon merely held out his draft year. He proved in AA the next year that the holdout did not matter.

To me, these guys are roughly the same. All this crap about 8 months - it doesn't mean nearly what you guys think it does. But I've been down this path before. You guys who have a fave prospect who is born on July 2nd will maintain that you're guy is a year younger than another player born 3 days earlier on June 30th. It's ridiculous. Baseball age is just a convenient catalog system. It's not the end all be all. When a guy isn't a full 12 months older than another guy he really isn't a year older.

Proud Hokie, Class of '98

by natsfan2005 on May 15, 2007 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

I wasn't trying misuse the age differnce here. I got caught up in the age difference and did misrepresent that. I should have been more careful. You're right, it is only 8 months difference.

"At the same age (actually he was 8 months older at the time), Gordon was putting up a .921 OPS in college."

Let me clarify this. He wasn't actually 8 months younger, I made a mistake when I typed this, but this is what I meant. By age, Longoria should have been a Sophmore last season (He was born in October, the cutoff is Sept. 1st. I assume he started school a year early, but I'm not positive). In that case, he was 4 months older than Gordon was when he was a Sophmore (my point is, Longoria was a Junior, when Gordon was a Sophmore in college). And at that age, Gordon posted a .921 OPS in college, while Longoria posted a .957 in pro ball.

by Tyler on May 15, 2007 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Re

Your still trying to hard to make a mountain out of a mole hill with the age thing. Your trying really damn hard to frame it in a way to place enormous significance on it. Gordon is a 1yr 8mo older but also one year ahead so the net is 8 months difference. Gordon held out the first season he could have played pro ball but it didn't matter because he killed Double-A in his debut. It's 8 months, no need to wordplay it into XYZ was hitting in AA while ABC was in college. Hell, Longoria was in college the year he was drafted too.

Regarding the .921 OPS of Gordon, I assume you are looking at TheBaseballCube (TBC). Well, 2003 was Gordon's freshman year OPS. 1.247 was his Sophomore year OPS and 1.233 was his Junior year OPS. TBC merely just ommitted Gordon's junior year (2005) altogether. That site is a little flaky. In my attention to detail I noticed this and had to look it up by Googling within the Baseball America site.

I don't think there is much difference in talent. I'd like to see Longoria sustain the walks a little longer before I believe he's elite in that skill. But I believe in his power. When breaking ties I have a mild preference for a LH bat because you're almost always stuck with RH bats at C/2B/SS/3B and it's nice to get a superstar LH bat at one of those positions.

Proud Hokie, Class of '98

by natsfan2005 on May 15, 2007 2:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly

Despite my poor writing about their age at times (which caused my overall point to be lost it seems), all I was really saying the entire time was that Longoria is not a fluke, and that his combination of tools an performance are on par with Gordon's.

And I may be making to much out of the age thing, but it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. All of the numbers I posted are right, and show, at least IMO that Longoria is an elite talent, and no less an elite talent that Gordon is/was.

by Tyler on May 15, 2007 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Longoria is a godsend to Tampa Bay

Yeah, I know Tampa Bay has had their share of top- notch prospects, but Longoria is different. He doesn't take anything for granted. He was undrafted out of high school and his accolades have all been achieved through hard work. He showed a lot of character and class signing a day after he was drafted at #3 overall, admitting he just wanted to get his career started.

by sdbaseballfan on May 13, 2007 10:54 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Going to be a fan favorite everywhere I think

by Bravesin07 on May 13, 2007 11:01 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It may be a sample size

but Longoria showed last year, and he's showing it again this year, that he's a damn good prospect. Those Joe Randa and Geoff Jenkins comparisons seem laughable now.

Also, compare him with Bobby Crosby and Troy Tulowitzki, both former Dirt Bags that were more highly thought of than Longoria coming into the draft... Longoria wipes the floor with them.

Just because Gordon was thought of as an elite talent (and he is one) and Longoria wasn't, doesn't mean Longoria isn't an elite talent. Scouts have missed on lots of players before... lots.

by killa3312 on May 14, 2007 12:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

yeahhh

he was a top 5 pick and before the 06 college season he was showing up on first round lists based on what scouts saw him do in summer ball despite the fact that Longoria hit only 320/368/421 at LBSU the year before.

They really missed on him alright..

by nms on May 14, 2007 3:30 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Longoria and Brignac

I can't wait

Morrow is the Sea Diamond.

by PujolsJunkie on May 14, 2007 3:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Longoria just homered AGAIN

But yeah, he's not that good.

by killa3312 on May 14, 2007 8:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Gordon vs. Longoria

The numbers are similar. The differences are minor IMO.

Gordon

bigger sample size (but not by that much)
better walk rate
better steals

Longoria

plays in a pitchers league
isn't sucking in MLB

Is this list definitive enough to put one above the other without doubt? Not to me.

I don't care what the scouts said about Longo's power. They were projecting how his power would translate to wooden bats and the the pros. They were wrong obviously. It happens.

by pedrophile on May 15, 2007 9:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Tyler

I'm still saying that 250 at bats doensn't overcome Gordon's great performance at AA coupled with his pedigree, which is one of the best in the last five years. I see Gordon as a .300 hitter with 45 HR potential, and I don't see Longoria as that...yet.

At the end of last year you ranked Longoria the 4th best prospect in the D-Rays organization! From 4th best D-Ray to clearly better than the consensus #1 prospect in baseball in 132 at bats! And you wonder why I say you have a lenient burden of proof...

Meh, it's not the first time you've tried to convince us all that (Devil Ray's prospect) > Alex Gordon.

by limozeen on May 15, 2007 1:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs