Blind Prospect Comparison

by The Scout on Mar 13, 2008 6:54 PM EDT

I hope you didn't come in here hoping to see a comparison between two prospects without the gift of eye sight.

Instead I'm going to give stat lines for two prospects. I feel that the lines are fairly similar and it kind of confuses me that one of the prospects is considered among the best in baseball and the other is hardly ever considered among the top 100.

Prospect A:

High-A 431 abs, 91 runs, 129 hits, 25 doubles, 4 triples, 14 homers, 77 rbi 60 BB, 116 SO, 27 SB, 10 CS, .299 avg., .392 obp., .473 slg.

Prospect B:

High-A 436 abs, 70 runs, 128 hits, 34 doubles, 8 triples, 10 homers, 43 rbi, 40 BB, 95 SO, 19 SB, 11 CS, .294 avg., .354 obp., .477 slg.

Both players are the same age and both are outfielders. Also, both struggled in Low-A in 2006.

Prospect A is considered a top 10 prospect in his organization. Prospect B is considered the #1 prospect in his organization and in the top 25 in baseball on most lists.

Prospect A is Michael Saunders OF for the Mariners.

Prospect B is Jordan Schafer OF for the Braves.

I thought that this was an interesting comparison. Yes, it's true that Schafer tore the cover off the ball in Low-A before getting the call up.

However, Saunders held his own for a cup of coffee in Double-A.

I'm not saying Saunders is as good as a prospect as Schafer. I just think Schafer gets a little bit too much attention and Saunders doesn't get enough. I'm also not taking difficulty of leauge into consideration.

Tweet Comment 30 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

what a misleading, pointless post

The biggest most obvious difference is that Schaf played at MYRTLE BEACH and Saunders played at HIGH FREAKING DESERT.
That is like the difference from Coors to the Marlins stadium. High Desert is heaven for bats and Myrtle might be the worst place for hitters in pro baseball

by nms on Mar 13, 2008 7:01 PM EDT reply actions

Whatever

Apply your same logic to Holliday and Willingham. sorry but it was just so easy to point out. The fact that you can point this obvious fact out to this guy proves that you should know better.

by casejud on Mar 14, 2008 1:39 AM EDT up reply actions

Dude

not to go off topic but PARK ADJUSTED statistics out there puts Holliday WAY ahead with the bat.
You do not have a factual leg to stand on.

PARK ADJUSTED... that is to say, not regular OPS/OBP/AVG/HRs/ect. Statistics that ADJUST FOR THE OFFENSIVE ENVIROMENT OF THE PLAYERS put Holliday way ahead with the bat.

For instance OPS PLUS (not OPS, as I confusuingly typo'd earlier) shows Holliday way ahead...
Holliday 06 OPS+ 137 to Willham's 121
Holliday 07 OPS+ 150 to Willham's 115

Seriously, YOU show ME ANY EVIDENCE that Willingham has been as productive a hitter as Holliday over the course of Willingham's two MLB years (note: I'm obviously not counting Willingham's two 20 AB cups of coffee)

by nms on Mar 14, 2008 3:14 AM EDT up reply actions

tools / projection

You didn't compare two prospects, you compared their performance (at a relatively rudimentary level) over the past season or two

As we know, there is much more to comparing prospects than just comparing numbers. Do they have the same batspeed? Does Schafer project to stay in CF while Saunders does not? Who's the better athlete?

There are more questions that can be asked, and I don't have the answers to most of those questions, but comparing to stat lines seems kind of... disingenuous?

-1 and only member of the Jed Lowrie fan club!

by Jgaztambide on Mar 13, 2008 7:04 PM EDT reply actions

^what he said..

by nms on Mar 13, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions

The right questions

but I think the original post was OK. He's making a point, and I kind of got that from the beginning. yes, he left some info out, but I don't think it's disengenuous in this case because that extra info actually clouds the issue further...

I went and looked up Saunders. Sounds like he is oozing with athletic ability, and is a legitimate 5-tool talent that starred in 5 sports and had NHL potential as well. Is the fact that he put his numbers in the Cal League the ONLY reason we never hear his name mentioned with Shafer's? I kind of doubt it - the press just isn't that savvy, in general.

by siddfynch on Mar 13, 2008 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Agreed

It's a good point actually. Many of us don't even realie how much we take for granted that we internalize what we hear and it is often quite reliable.

People on hear act funny when you ask them if they have SEEN a guy play...even a little. You'd be surprised how many good prospects get overlooked for one reason or another.

by casejud on Mar 14, 2008 1:42 AM EDT up reply actions

also

The other huge flaw in your approach is that your method to begin with is bogus.
You can't just look at 400 at-bats from high A to tell the story.

Scouting reports DO matter, ESPECIALLY in A-ball.

You are putting out non-park adjusted stats and expecting them to speak for themselves. They don't.
The goal here is evaluating how good of an MLBer Saunders or Schafer can be, and what their odds of that are.
400 A-ball at bats don't really answer that question very effectively.

And ignoring half or more of the facts available to you is no way to make any decision.

by nms on Mar 13, 2008 7:04 PM EDT reply actions

One factor to look at is a difference in league

I am not an expert on how leagues affect stats, but Cal League stats always seem inflated.

#269

by mrmetaa on Mar 13, 2008 7:04 PM EDT reply actions

Team stats

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_tba&lid=110&sid=l110

http://web.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_tba&lid=122&sid=l122

#269

by mrmetaa on Mar 13, 2008 7:06 PM EDT up reply actions

True but...

Can anybody post their opinion on this site without sounding like a prick?

I know the difference in the leagues is a huge factor, but I don't think it's so much of a factor that Schafer is among the best prospects in baseball, and almost nobody talks about Saunders.

I just don't think it's a pointless post. Everybody knows High-A for the M's is high desert and High-A for the Braves is Myrtle Beach.

I just don't think Saunders should be penalized for that. Lots of good prospects fail to hit in high desert.

Replies like yours is why I don't post on this site much. Most people here act like such dickheads. You couldn't replay without sounding like an asshole?

by The Scout on Mar 13, 2008 7:10 PM EDT reply actions

no

"True but...Can anybody post their opinion on this site without sounding like a prick?"

No. Stop posting and go away.

Kidding, I seldom post for the same reason. I agree with nms here, FWIW, though I think comparisons like this are still fun to look solely at the production side of players' games. Of course, environment needs to be a part of the equation for it to be somewhat useful, but it's still interesting.

http://rswanzey.blogspot.com

by rswanzey on Mar 13, 2008 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Question

Do you want some cheese with that whine? Way to overreact there pal. NMS might have been a bit abrasive but nowhere did he call you a "dickhead, asshole or prick". If you're going to be this sensitive to the slightest of perceived insults, go back to lurking and go home crying to mommy.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell05 on Mar 13, 2008 9:32 PM EDT up reply actions

Honestly I have to agree

Grow a set. The type comparison was off base. The park factors, tools, league difference are huge and as we know performance isn't everything. This is about projection of a player since when does anyone rely heavily on stats and not consider all of the outside sources.

And if you are going to make an argument based on stats and forget tools and projection all together it would be smart to mention the league difference and park difference.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by JD Sussman on Mar 13, 2008 9:39 PM EDT up reply actions

I was referring to the orginal poster nms

You guys are right, I was just taking the stats on the surface.

I was flipping through Johns book and just thought it was interesting on the surface. I just happen to like Saunders and think that he doesn't get enough attention.

I mean he's 6'4" and is probably still raw considering he's from Canada.

I just wish nms could have replied like the rest of you did.

by The Scout on Mar 13, 2008 7:14 PM EDT reply actions

Familiar

I have been making this comparison for a while. I like Saunders quite a bit, and he tore it up for Team Canada in the offseason. I think he is poised for a breakout year this season, and could end up being a little better than Schafer in the long run. Saunders is from Canada, so he doesn't have as much baseball under his belt as many of his peers, add to that he was a multi-sport star, so he wasn't completely focused on baseball while in HS. As an M's fan, I'm looking forward to seeing what he can do.

by Brett Keith on Mar 13, 2008 7:21 PM EDT reply actions

Offensive #'s don't tell everything....

there are a number of scouted factors such as defensive skill, athletic ability, difference in leagues, hitter's swing, body type, maturity level, plate approach, baseball knowledge and so on.... all of these factor into how players are evaluated. We never know, Saunders could very well be better than Schafer, or vice-versa.

by Wesrob1 on Mar 13, 2008 9:43 PM EDT reply actions

Sorry, feeling rude

but thanks for nothing there pal.

Really?? Scafer OR Saunders could be better than each other???? What insight!! Scouting matters??? Amazing!

by casejud on Mar 14, 2008 1:46 AM EDT up reply actions

I think...

that is the exact kind of comment that Scout was saying was unnecessary. You added absolutely nothing to the thread, and instead just tried to show up another blogger. Quite rude. It doesn't matter that you warned that you would be, doesn't excuse the childish nature of it.

Some people on this site seem to forget that these prospect rankings will not affect what kind of pro players these men become, if they ever do. In fact, I think if it has any effect, it's that the pressure of a higher ranking may hurt prospects, while those who are not ranked may feel slighted and try harder (but that's just my opinion). Wesrob1 may have been stating the obvious... but lots of people here need to be reminded.

As for the rest of these comments, let's keep the tone civil. nms may have been a slightly abrasive, and Scout overreacted, again, in my opinion, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to come in and start throwing insults about lacking testicles. Grow up, boys.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Mar 14, 2008 2:56 AM EDT up reply actions

Again, I'm with you on the sentiment

but the sig kind seems to directly contradict your message...kind of saying one thing, while promoting another....

by siddfynch on Mar 14, 2008 9:35 AM EDT up reply actions

Saunders

from BA's scouting report:

"A potential 5-tool talent with as much athelticism as any SEA farmhand, he generates good power with a fluid left-handed stroke.....strong arm, touched 91 mph....NHL potential in hockey, also starred in bball, lacrosse, and soccer...."

John doesn't have as much specific info about his background, but notes the athleticism and that he's basically a toolsy project who appeared to have turned the corner in 2007, but for whom the jury is still out.....pretty much just like Schafer.

I think some of you guys are being to hard on The Scout...it's not like he compared Tyler Clippard to Phil Hughes based soley on their numbers. Yeah, he left out some info, but the info doesn't change that much....the two guys still have a lot of similarities...

by siddfynch on Mar 13, 2008 9:49 PM EDT reply actions

Schafer > Saunders, But...

As a Braves fan, I am starting to see the hype machine pick up steam and I'm terrified. Jordan's a very good prospect, but he's not elite yet. I think when you consider the home ballparks, his numbers are better than Mike's. That said, it certainly does seem as though they both deserve the same kind of attention: cautious optimisism.

Braves fan since 1995.

by ejruiz on Mar 13, 2008 10:21 PM EDT reply actions

Differences:

I will try and point out the specifics of what you left out while being polite, because you really have painted a poor picture of these prospects.

1)Offensive Context

HR park factors:

High Desert: 1.48
Myrtle Beach: .76

That's a HUGE difference, and makes Saunders' power #'s look way better and Schafer's look way worse. These factors don't even account for the difference in the league average in the CAL league vs. the CAR league. The fact that the numbers look comparable is actually a pretty convincing argument as to why Schafer is higher rated.

2) SAL

When comparing statistical profiles, it is pretty bad form to just leave out the information that doesn't fit your argument. Schafer had an OPS of 1.077 in the Sally league before getting promoted, and yet your original narrative implied that the only thing he did in that league was struggle. That low-A breakout is a pretty big reason Schafer grabbed so much attention this past year.

3) Defense

Saunders has good defensive tools, but is a bit raw, and may end up at a corner down the line (though the potential is there to be a good CF).

Schafer is already an amazing defensive CF with a plus-plus arm.

All in all, your comparison is very flawed. I actually think the two have similar ceilings, but Schafer is a much more complete player at this point.

by aCone419 on Mar 13, 2008 10:58 PM EDT reply actions

Nicely done

Also, it's early, so I'm not really able to think about this, BUT: do those park factors mean that, basically, one run scored in Myrtle Beach is the equivalent of about two runs scored at High Desert?

by mraver on Mar 14, 2008 8:20 AM EDT up reply actions

Not exactly

Those are just the park factors for HRs, not overall.

by aCone419 on Mar 14, 2008 12:04 PM EDT up reply actions

Apologies

if my tones or words were overly harsh. I was not trying to be harsh on any personal level, just state my rebuttal towards the concept of your post in a clear, forceful manner.
apologies

by nms on Mar 14, 2008 1:29 AM EDT reply actions

+1 Scout

I think the original post was interesting. AND I think you are exactly right about many of the posters on this site.

by my dixie wrecked on Mar 14, 2008 3:18 AM EDT reply actions

++1

by Jihan1 on Mar 14, 2008 10:16 AM EDT up reply actions

Watch it

Some posts have crossed the line in this thread into excessive vulgarity. I don't care about that personally, being rather vulgar myself, but we've had complaints. I have deleted offensive posts and banned a user who crossed the line one too many times. Be on good behavior.

by John Sickels on Mar 14, 2008 1:04 PM EDT reply actions