2008 community prospect ratings--hank conger

by jpahk on Jan 14, 2008 12:46 AM EST Comment 21 comments

previous batch:

cole rohrbough: mean 6.93, SD 1.22
brett cecil: mean 6.09, SD 1.14
nick hagadone: mean 5.96, SD 1.27
james simmons: mean 6.34, SD 1.28
aaron poreda: mean 5.76, SD 1.33

full results here. some interesting developments: we get 3 out of our 4 worst-ever ratings, including poreda, who beats out humber for the bottom spot (so far). also, very low response rate, causing me to add the spreadsheet column for uncertainty of the rating.

onward and upward. this one's about catchers.

this thread is for discussion of hank conger, C, los angeles angels. here are some links to conger's stats:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=32240
http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Hank%20Conger&pos=C&sid=milb&t =p_pbp&pid=474233
http://firstinning.com/players/Hank-Conger-a/

i'll leave this thread open for at least 48 hours. you can vote at any time, but since you can't change your vote, if you are uncertain in any way, it's probably best to refrain from voting until after you get a chance to read the discussion.

the numerical ratings should follow this scale:

10 bona fide blue-chip grade A stud
9
8 great prospect, somebody you'd be okay with as the jewel of your favorite team's system
7
6 good prospect, but not among the best in the game
5
4 marginal prospect, but somebody with a pulse
3
2 organizational filler--just a warm body to fill out a minor league roster
1

the rating should be a combination of the player's possible outcomes and his likelihood of reaching those outcomes. in other words, consider both "upside" and "safety" when making your decision--though how you weight them is entirely up to you.

for example, you could give somebody an 8 because you feel he is sure to be a pretty good player, but you could also give somebody else an 8 because even though he has a higher chance to flame out, he also has a chance to be really special. a 5 might be a guy with a decent chance to be a regular, or it might be somebody with a pretty big upside who you are just not very confident will actually ever make it.

Poll

How good a prospect is Hank Conger?

1

2 votes

10

5 votes

9

21 votes

8

48 votes

7

35 votes

6

10 votes

5

9 votes

4

0 votes

3

0 votes

2

0 votes

130 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 21 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

5

I gave him a low grade of 5. I know this differs from most's thoughts on him, but I have a lot of trouble seeing him stick at catcher. He's somewhere between awful and horrendous at throwing out baserunners, and I haven't heard much better news about his footwork behind the plate. If he gets moved off of C, where does he play? He's not athletic enough for the outfield, and he's probably too short for an infield corner. On top of that, his hitting didn't indicate to me that he'd have the bat for a position other than catcher. Thus, I see him as a fairly marginal prospect with a likely scenario somewhere around Matt Lecroy.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 14, 2008 2:11 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Conger's Defense Better Than You Think

I'm very puzzled by your comments about Conger's defense. To quote from the recent FutureAngels.com Top 10 Prospects Report:

http://www.futureangels.com/top10/2007.aspx

Conger's defensive skills are questioned by some, but at this stage he's much better than you've been told. His aptitude for the game is "off the charts" according to one observer. Midwest League opponents complimented his game-calling and how well he handled his pitching staff. He did an excellent job of blocking pitches, allowing only five passed balls in 70 games. Hank needs to improve his lateral movement and flexibility, which will come with improved conditioning. He's also aggressive trying to pick off base runners, a skill encouraged by an organization whose major league skipper is a former All-Star catcher. He tends to rush his mechanics a little because he's young, but that should disappear with maturity.

I'll also refer you to the interview I recorded last July with Tom Gregorio, the Angels' catching instructor:

mms:/205.178.152.121/1134993/gregoriot1.wma

... and the interview I recorded last week with Angels' farm director Abe Flores, in which we discussed Conger:

mms:/205.178.152.121/1134993/floresa1.wma

The only issue with Conger seems to be conditioning, but his defensive skills are progressing quite nicely for his age and level.

Stephen

by FutureAngels on Jan 14, 2008 3:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

an unbiased opinion

here is what someone who isn't an Angels fan and doesn't get paid by the organization thinks about Conger's defense:

"Tim (Portland): Did Hank Conger make any progress defensively this year or is he still borderline for staying behind the plate?

Kevin Goldstein: Borderline -- feels like I'm going to lose my mind.
Yeah, I went there."

thats from a BP chat http://baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=403

by kaisertown on Jan 14, 2008 3:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Meanwhile, in the Twilight Zone ...

"here is what someone who isn't an Angels fan and doesn't get paid by the organization thinks about Conger's defense ..."

Let me get this straight -- you're suggesting that some amateur hack at BP knows more about an Angels catcher than (1) the Angels' farm director and (2) the Angels' catching instructor?!

This is why so many people in the baseball business laugh at the statheads. They have this absurd arrogance that they know more about baseball than people with decades in the business.

I'd be curious to know whether Goldstein has ever even seen Conger play. I have, about ten games, which is probably ten more than Goldstein.

by FutureAngels on Jan 14, 2008 11:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

statheads?

what on earth does this have to do with statheads?

no really -- i'm curious.

you see, to me, what this might have something to do with is conflict of interests and reliable sources -- namely, independent analysts, and the non-Angel scouts they talk to.

but maybe you don't see that concern.

i'd also re-consider the phrase "some amateur hack at BP." i'm not a huge Goldstein, but he's not just "some hack" -- he's kind of prominent -- and he's definitely not "amateur."

by bleedjaxblue on Jan 15, 2008 12:23 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

conflict of interest

Goldstein is a scout, not a stathead. He is also a professional and is well respected. It is a little ridiculous to refer to him as "some amateur hack".

I wouldn't say KG knows more about Conger than Angels scouts, coaches and front office people. But BJB nailed my point when he brought up conflict of interests. Of course the Angels are going to say that Conger is improving defensively. The Yankees have said the same things about Montero and the Indians used to say that Max Ramirez was going to stick at catcher too. It doesn't matter what they really think because they won't say it. Can you imagine any organization publically saying "even though we keep playing x player at y position he isn't any good at it and has no future there."? So it might be true, but what the Angels say to some reporter or journalist is far from concrete fact.

In general, when reports stop popping up that a player can't make it at his current position they are true or the player will be pretty poor defensively.

by kaisertown on Jan 15, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Um....

LeCroy strikes out 1/4 of the time. Hank Conger has good contact skills. Nice comparison....not.

Also, you're right, your 5 grade differs since you don't know a damn thing about him. Maybe you should read up on what scouts, BP, and Baseball America have to say about him before making wild assertions. Let me give you a hint, it's wildly different than your ignorant views on him.

by 2008 on Jan 14, 2008 3:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Nice attack on me

Just assume I don't actually pay attention to any of this?

a) The Goldstein comment has already been pointed out that it's still considered borderline that he stays at catcher.

b) See the following blog entry from BA: http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=586 . Note that Conger's CS ratio was significantly worse than most catchers in the minors last year. He didn't attempt a ridiculous number of throws, so it doesn't neccessarily bear out that his coaches were just having him throw in situations where the catcher would normally hold (plus, wouldn't you think they'd want to teach him the skill of when NOT to throw?), although the number was a bit high for only having caught about 80 games. The blog entry also says there are questions about whether he stays at catcher because "he's not light on his feet".

c) On the Lecroy comp, it was a quick name I pulled out. Yes, it's not a perfect comp, but the general point was that he doesn't project to be a game-changing hitter whether or not he stays at catcher, and if he's marginal defensively, he'll probably end up platoon hitting while backing up at C and 1B, while being subpar defensively at both positions.

d) I realize he has a while to learn this, but his splits concern me. He hit good, but not great, vs righties, and turned into Neifi Perez vs lefties. Also, his LD rate doesn't come close to supporting his high BABIP. I suspect that his high batting average was an aberration. It will be hard to tell, because after low-A, every stop in the Angels farm is serious hitter's parks, so I suspect his stock will continue to go up; still unless he 'breaks out', he looks like maybe a Paul LoDuca type hitter (i.e. .280/.330/.420) in the majors, which won't cut it if he's not playing catcher.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 14, 2008 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

warning

don't feed the trolls.

by jpahk on Jan 14, 2008 4:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pretty sure I know who it is too

but I figured I'd let the points get out there anyway. I understand some of the rationale behind why people rate him (he hit pretty well for the MWL as a 19 year-old), but there really are a ton of contraindicators on him that most people here seem to just be ignoring.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 14, 2008 4:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My comment wasn't about his defense...

You wrote "On top of that, his hitting didn't indicate to me that he'd have the bat for a position other than catcher."

BP had this to say about his future: "a below average defensive catcher that makes up for it by hitting in the middle of the order." That doesn't sound like someone whose bat isn't good enough besides at catcher. That sounds like someone whose main value comes from his hitting, and anything you get out of defense is a bonus. What do you have to say about that? Hmm?

As for D) Orlando Cabrera (former Angel) had a high LD rate, yet his BABIP was below average. He also rarely strikes out.

The holy grail will be when we stop using these silly bins ("line drive", "fly ball", etc.) and can calculate batted ball velocity and trajectory, which is right around the corner. Then we'll know why players have a higher BABIP than others. Going by LD rate is worthless, since many players with a high LD rate have average to below average BABIPs, while others don't. Some players have a very high BABIP with a moderate LD rate, some don't. Why is that?

What do you think is more likely to be a hit, a David Ortiz line drive or an Alfredo Amezaga line drive? How about a David Ortiz grounder, or an Alfredo Amezaga grounder? Amezaga has an extremely high LD rate as well, yet his BABIP is below average.

You know...Cameron Maybin had a 9% LD rate (lower than Conger's) in 680 ABs from low A to high A, yet his BABIP is extremely high and he's seen as someone who will hit for average (even though he strikes out a ton)

The harder the ball hit, the more likely it is to be a hit. That's true for everything, whether it's a grounder, flyball or a line drive.

by 2008 on Jan 14, 2008 4:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

welcome to the site

your second post was well-reasoned and contained interesting data about the players under discussion (and some other players). your first post was a vitriolic ad-hominem attack against a moderator of this site. we should all have such a steep learning curve...

by jpahk on Jan 14, 2008 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

BP

BP's comment on Conger, "a below average defensive catcher that makes up for it by hitting in the middle of the order," is his perfect world prediction. In other words, if everything goes right and he reaches his absolute ceiling that's what he is. It is very unlikely he, or any prospect, actually does that.

by marcello on Jan 15, 2008 12:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That's not true

Unless you're saying every player with ace or #2 starter ceiling isn't going to reach that ceiling, every player with a #3 ceiling isn't going to reach that ceiling, every player with 30 HR potential isn't going to reach that ceiling, etcetera.

Some players have a high likelihood of reaching their ceiling, some don't. Some players have more likelihood of reaching their ceiling than others, and it all comes down to certain factors in the end....but to imply that it's unlikely that any player will reach their ceiling is a ridiculous assertion.

by 2008 on Jan 15, 2008 12:55 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clarify

I should have been more clear. Anytime someone has a ceiling of middle of the order hitter, or frontline starter, they are very unlikely to reach that. Especially if they are still far away from the majors. Even guys who have ceilings of 4th outfielder, or utility guy, are unlikely to reach that (unless they are already basically a AAAA player).

by marcello on Jan 15, 2008 10:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Btw

It is pointed out in the comment on Sean Rodriguez in that same top 10 on FutureAngels.com that the Angels new AA park is NOT a hitters park. The team ops was 50+ points lower at home than on the road. So, It's evening out some.

by casejud on Jan 14, 2008 7:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sean Rodriguez

Thank you for reading the report ... People who actually went to Dickey-Stephens Park (as I did) knew it was playing as pitcher-friendly, and the year-end stats proved that for almost all the Travelers players, hitters and pitchers.

That's why I knew Rodriguez didn't have as bad a year as some claim. Look at his road split and his AVG/OBP/SLG were .269/.339/.502, which isn't bad for a 22-year old in Double-A. 13 of his 17 homers came on the road.

The Texas League was once considered to be a hitter-friendly league, but no more. The new parks have changed the league. DSP is killer on fly balls to center and left-center.

by FutureAngels on Jan 14, 2008 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Pitcher's park in a hitter's league

That's true, but if the league as a whole hits for an OPS .075 higher than the minor league average, and they hit .025 lower because of their home park, their stats are still inflated. Park factors are all league-relative.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Jan 15, 2008 8:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Factoring Out Hitter-Friendly Parks

Regarding d), it's not hard to adjust for parks within the Angels system -- if you actually know the leagues in which they play.

For Rancho, the hitter-friendly parks are High Desert and Lancaster. I always take that into consideration when looking at the Quakes' stats.

As for Arkansas, Dickey-Stephens Park is one of the most pitcher-friendly parks in the league, which in general has become far more neutral because of many new parks built in recent years.

As for Salt Lake, if you read my 2007 FutureAngels.com Top 10 Prospects report you'll see I adjusted the Bees players not on home/road but on hitter-friendly/other -- because I know the PCL and which parks are hitter-friendly.

You make it sound like nobody is aware of these factors. That's simply not true. The problem is that a lot of amateurs writing fan sites don't know this because they don't bother to learn those leagues. I do because I go out to visit those affiliates and sometimes see them on the road to understand the park effects.

by FutureAngels on Jan 14, 2008 11:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs