Prospect Smackdown: Jay Bruce vs. Colby Rasmus
by John Sickels on Mar 3, 2008 1:29 PM EST
in News
94 comments
Prospect Smackdown: Jay Bruce vs. Colby Rasmus
Background and Intangibles
Bruce: Bruce was drafted by the Reds in the first round in 2005, 12th overall, out of high school in Beaumont, Texas. Named Baseball America's Minor League Player of the Year in 2007, he had a terrific campaign at three levels, including dominating Triple-A at age 20. Scouts love his makeup and work ethic and praise his intangibles.
Rasmus: Rasmus was drafted by the Cardinals in the first round in 2005, 28th overall, out of high school in Phenix City, Alabama. Rated as the top prospect in the Texas League last year by most experts, he draws praise for his broad range of tools and skills. Scouts love his makeup and work ethic and praise his intangibles.
Advantage: Both are high-profile draftees with pro success and strong work ethics. Looks even to me.
Physicality, Health, and Tools
Bruce: Bruce is 6-2, 218, born April 3, 1987, a left-handed hitter and thrower. Scouts love his strength and athleticism. His worst physical tool is running speed, which still rates a tick above average. He's expected to hit for both average and power due to his exceptional bat speed. His plate discipline is erratic and he strikes out a lot, but his bat is so quick that the less-than-perfect strike zone judgment has not hurt his performance so far against pro pitching. He's aware of this issue and it shouldn't be a long-term problem given how hard he works. Overall he is a complete package physically, though he may lose his speed as he ages. He plays center now but may move to right field in the future.
Rasmus: Rasmus is 6-2, 195 pounds, born August 11, 1986, a left-handed hitter and thrower. Like Bruce, his tools rate as slightly above average to excellent across the board. He has above average power, above average speed, and excellent plate discipline. He is also a terrific defensive outfielder with a strong arm. His strike zone judgment is a big plus.
Advantage: Bruce may have slightly more power potential and his bat is a touch quicker, but Rasmus has better strike zone judgment, will keep his speed longer, and is more likely to be playing center field ten years from now. Both of them have the physicality and tools to be complete players.
Performance and Polish
Bruce: Bruce is a career .299/.362/.543 hitter, including .305/.358/.567 in 50 games of Triple-A last year. He is polished in most respects, needing only to tighten up the strike zone a bit more.
Rasmus: Rasmus is a career .285/.371/.510 hitter, including .275/.381/.551 in Double-A last year. He is polished in most respects. His main problem is that he becomes too pull-conscious at times, leading to hot/cold spells that can inhibit his batting average.
Advantage: Rasmus has better command of the strike zone right now, but Bruce has shown more of an ability to hit for average against minor league pitching. Rasmus has produced a better OBP but Bruce has shown a tad bit better power.
Projection
Bruce: Bruce projects as a superstar hitter with a high batting average (once he settles in) excellent power production, and fine defense in right field (in the long run). PECOTA comps include Cliff Floyd and Manny Ramirez on the positive side, and Dee Brown on the negative side. Upside VORP is 274.0
Rasmus: Rasmus projects as a star or superstar with a moderate batting average, excellent power production, and excellent defense in center field. PECOTA comps include Carlos Beltran and Bobby Abreu on the positive side, and Dee Brown and Willie Green on the negative side. Upside VORP is 139.0
Advantage: It's interesting that PECOTA sees Dee Brown as a comp for both players, which basically shows you what a good prospect Dee was before he fell apart. PECOTA isn't everything course but I think the high-end comps hold, with Bruce having a shot at developing into a Manny Ramirez type (with better defense) while Rasmus would be more in the Beltran class at the high end. PECOTA rates Bruce's possible upside as significantly higher than Rasmus', though I think it exaggerates a bit.
Summary
Ultimately I went with Bruce as the Top Hitting prospect in baseball, with Rasmus at number three in the 2008 Baseball Prospect Book. As you can see they are very close, but ultimately I think Bruce's offensive ceiling is just a tad higher than Rasmus', though Rasmus is hardly a slouch and may develop into a more complete player in other ways.
0 recs |
94 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Tough to miss on either guy
by dougdirt on Mar 3, 2008 1:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I AM SO EXCITED
by Galt on Mar 3, 2008 1:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
While I can understand someone taking Bruce,
by elrey34 on Mar 3, 2008 1:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
+1
Both are total studs and project to be monsters so its tough to choose but I'd rather have rasmus in my farm system.
by Team Moneyball on Mar 3, 2008 2:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Look at the Photos
I look forward to watching both careers, but Rasmus is the one personally observed in the minors. Playing in the buckle of the Bible Belt, Rasmus had that Billy Graham gift of causing half to two thirds of the crowd to jump and yell "Jesus Christ!!". Not just with his bat, but his arm.
by Toad on Mar 4, 2008 11:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Follow Through
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 5, 2008 1:11 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BA
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 2:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
.250
by Team Moneyball on Mar 3, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not quite
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 3:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mike Cameron in his prime
Prime Cameron > Prime Dunn. That's a great player.
by elrey34 on Mar 3, 2008 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Great
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How short sighted of you.
by elrey34 on Mar 3, 2008 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You would be an idiot not to
by nyy601 on Mar 3, 2008 9:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I should be clear.
And Michael Young was overrated in his prime too. For all he was good with the bat, he gave up a lot more runs with the glove than most people believe.
by elrey34 on Mar 3, 2008 9:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Either One
On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see the Giants sign or trade for Mike Cameron.
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 9:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Cameron was masked by a crappy home park
- .309/.388/.528
- .310/.392/.591
- .258/.345/.509
- .268/.357/.432
- .234/.329/.512
- .301/.377/.519
- .265/.350/.465
- .254/.341/.449
by Fett42 on Mar 3, 2008 9:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which isn't to say at hi current age
by Fett42 on Mar 3, 2008 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Also,
2000-2003 CF UZR with 400 Games+
+26 Mike Cameron
+15 Andruw Jones
+5 Torii Hunter
+5 Juan Pierre
+4 Carlos Beltran
-1 Jim Edmonds (387G, but whatever)
-9 Preston Wilson
-25 Bernie Williams (388G)
Twenty-six runs added to that offense is a lot of production.
by elrey34 on Mar 3, 2008 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Good Player
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 4, 2008 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not talking about the present Cameron.
by elrey34 on Mar 3, 2008 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rasmus was sick remember
by Bravesin07 on Mar 3, 2008 3:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
bad luck
Rasmus had a sub .300 BABIP last year in spite of having a 23% line drive rate, which is pretty significant anomaly. He also had a sub .300 BABIP the year before in A+, but at least that came with a 13% LD rate.
by Galt on Mar 3, 2008 4:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
.255?
I guess we'll see. Me? I'd take Bruce without much hesitation.
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 5:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Do you read?
He had a 13% LD rate - which stands to reason that he'd only have about a .300 BABIP.
Last year, he had a 23% LD rate - which would indicate a MUCH higher BABIP. He had bad luck last year. Plain and simple.
by Galt on Mar 3, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I Read
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
super
by Galt on Mar 3, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DOWN WITH SABREMETRICS!
by Galt on Mar 3, 2008 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Abberrant?
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
yeah he has
by Bravesin07 on Mar 3, 2008 6:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK, My Bad
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rasmus walks have been going up as well
by Bravesin07 on Mar 3, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Walks/HR's
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
except
I can understand liking bruce over Rasmus, but it just sounds like you just hate Colby.
by Team Moneyball on Mar 3, 2008 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
That's Ridiculous........
All I'm saying is, if I make the choice right now on the available information, I would take Bruce and I wouldn't hesitate.
Now, howthehell is that hating Rasmus. Geezus!!
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 4, 2008 11:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
.255
obviously these guys are extremely close and both project to be studs. i think it comes down to bruce being the slightly better hitter both for average and power (unless he falls apart b/c of his strikeout problems) while rasmus is more valuable defensively and will steal more bases. ultimately you have to decide what your preference is a right fielder that will hit .300-.310 with 40 homers and above average defense or a center fielder that will hit .280-.290 with 30 homers, 20 steals, and above average defense.
by fewgoodcards on Mar 3, 2008 5:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Given That Choice?
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 5:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bruce like won't have a higher AVG than Rasmus
Bruce is a brilliant hitter, and I'd be very surprised if Rasmus challenges Bruce as a power hitter, but it would be very surprising for Bruce to be a consistent .300 hitter while striking out over 150 times a year. It is an extremely rare feat.
I think in the end, Rasmus will have a 20-30 point edge in BA and about a 50-70 point edge in OBP; though due to Bruce's superior power, they'll probably end up with around the same OPS.
Therefore, with an equal OPS, I'll take the guy with the higher OBP.
by Galt on Mar 3, 2008 5:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OPS/OBP
But, that's not the reason I like Bruce better. I just think he's a better hitter, mainly due to his ablility to maintain a BA >.250.
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"I'd prefer the guy with the lower OBP"
Because it sounds like you mean the latter, in which case that is exactly the opposite of what all the research I've seen indicates.
by Tim J on Mar 3, 2008 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Research
I also think there is more than one way to get the job done and you need a mixture of hitting types in a lineup for optimum run production.
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On what basis are you not convinced?
by Fett42 on Mar 3, 2008 9:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Show Me The Formula....
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 4, 2008 12:51 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A few reads demonstrating this
by Fett42 on Mar 4, 2008 1:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Interesting....
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 4, 2008 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If that doesn't convince you
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/a-closer-look-at-run-estimation/
and see that the portions of the equations that dictate how much you get on base are much more important to the model than the total bases aspect that defines slugging.
Now if you want to read a real study on all of this that proves it pretty conclusively, I suggest you buy The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball by Tom Tango and others, and read the first chapter on wOBA, probably the best single offensive metric out there. As noted by Tango, the best way to crudely estimate this without all the calculations is [(OBP x 2) + SLG]/3. Basically any sabermetrician who knows linear weights will tell you that OBP is 1.5-2.0 times as valuable as SLG when weighting them together for run scoring (i.e., you get the highest r-squared values with the model).
by Fett42 on Mar 4, 2008 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 4, 2008 4:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
So that's
I'm not arguing that's a good offense, but I am arguing that .250/.400/.250 is much better than .250/.250/.400.
by Fett42 on Mar 4, 2008 5:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Need Both
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 4, 2008 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I think he got you
Let me offer a possible explanation why OBP is somewhat more important than SLG by asking you, would you rather have a guy pop up to shortstop with a runner on first base -- or have the guy on first get out stealing? In either case you record an out.
But on the popup you gain only the out. On the caught stealing, you gain both an out and a base (and the second most important base at that in first base).
When a guy improves his OBP by walking, he avoids making an out. His OBP goes up, and his SLG remains the same. If a player improves his SLG by taking an extra base on his hit, his SLG goes up, and his OBP remains the same. In the former case, the player gained a base and saved an out. In the latter case (for instance, a double rather than a single), the play gains a base, but the out had already been saved.
When the player got the base hit to begin with, he improved BOTH his OBP and his SLG (assuming his SLG wasn't over 1.000 to begin with).
I do believe that OBP is more valuable than SLG, since each base of OBP avoids an out. Not every base of SLG does so.
Let me ask you this: Would a team with a .250 OBP and a .400 SLG outscore a team with a .400 OBP and a .250 SLG? I don't think so.
The former team would get only one runner out four on base, while the latter would get two runners out of five there. That's a pretty significant difference.
As a team's OBP rises to very high levels, it begins to get so many runners on base that it almost CAN'T avoid scoring some of them. On the other hand, if a team hits with power but doesn't get many runners on to take advantage of that power, it actually finds it frustratingly difficult to score high numbers of runs -- DESPITE the power.
One way to look at things is to ask yourself how many times you have seen a team with 10 hits score a fairly low number of runs. Now, how many times have you seen a team draw 10 walks and achieve only a low score?
by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 2:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fallacy
Second fallacy is that no team is ever going to sustain the avoidance of outs. Even a .400 OBP represents success rate <50%. The question is whether you can sustain getting on base to score runs before the roullette wheel strikes and you're out of the inning. Obviously, even with a very excellent OBP of .400, you're luck will run out before you score very many runs. Merely avoiding outs is not good enough. You have to drive in runs!
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 7, 2008 11:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The importance of OBP vs. Runs...
Only 32 of those seasons were by guys whose OBP was under .380, so 85% of those seasons were by players whose OBP was .380 or above.
If you bump the limit to 135 runs, it's never been accomplished by anyone with an OBP lower than .365, and only 6 times with an OBP under .390.
It's pretty obvious that if you're going to be scoring a large number of runs, you have to get on base frequently to do so.
by Oenophile on Mar 4, 2008 9:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Runs Scored
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 5, 2008 1:07 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not always...
by Oenophile on Mar 5, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Uh, Yeah
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 5, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
But...
by Oenophile on Mar 6, 2008 1:01 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
OK.....
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 6, 2008 1:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Every
What are the only ways to guarantee a team's scoring a run? Hitting a home run or never making an out. And the home run guarantees only one run. Never making an out guarantees an infinite amount.
by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 2:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
fool
1st. You don't actually believe that Batting average is even near one of the most important stats, do you? If you do, then I won't respond to you since it's talking to a wall. If you admit that it's not, then quit harping on it as it's really the only thing you've been able to discuss.
2nd. Colby Rasmus has never hit under .250 in his life. He hit under .275 once in his pro career - and that was when he was a level above Jay Bruce in spite of being the same draft year. You make it seem like Rasmus is a .240 hitter and Bruce is a .330 hitter.
Rasmus has a career minor league BA of .285. Bruce has a career minor league BA of .299.
Rasmus has a career minor league BABIP of .312 with an 18% line drive rate. Bruce has a .371 with an 18.6% line drive rate.
Rasmus' batting average is much lower due largely to bad luck.
by Galt on Mar 3, 2008 7:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Completely Agree
by Romo9 on Mar 3, 2008 7:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
BA
That having been said, I think BA is actually pretty underrated in these parts. Yes, it's generally prone to fluctuation, but it is the most basic skill in baseball. The ability to hit a baseball consistently with sufficient ability so as to reach base is at the core of every other offensive skill. Even batting eye is effected by contact ability, as a hitter who can make more contact will see a larger zone of hittable pitches and be less prone to "take". See Robinson Cano, Ichiro, and Vlad as extreme examples of this.
A base hit IS more valuable than a walk, even accounting for the potentially lower number of pitches that it requires, and frankly, a K is considerably less valuable than a "productive out" where a runner could be advanced or a based taken on an error.
Of course a slugger can be expected to K, and so I don't ever expect Jay Bruce to be confused for Wade Boggs, but it is worrisome when a player demonstrates an inability to put the ball into play that often (and I do believe in Bruce's case, it's a product of him just missing). Similarly, whether through illness or luck, Rasmus remains seemingly unable to lift his batting average above 300 for a season.
All that having been said, I prefer Rasmus' odds of putting it all together greatly to Dave Kingman, err, Jay Bruce's. Thanks a ton for the write up, Mr.Sickels!
by GuyinNY on Mar 3, 2008 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fool?
Yes, I do believe BA is an important stat. That's different than saying it's the only important stat. BA's have a strong tendency to be lower for a given player after they reach the majors. Yes, I know that is not universally true, but it happens a lot more often than not. You also have to take league context into consideration. If I have a choice between a player who hits .300+ with 30 HR's in the Southern League and International league and another player who hits .270 with 30 HR's in the Texas League, I'm going with the first guy and it's not a close call. Rasmus may do fine, but until I see him sustain a BA closer to .300 with the same power, I'm going to remain suspicious that he'll struggle to hit .250 in the majors and that would be a severe drag on his productivity as a hitter.
As for your straw man of .240 vs .330, I do think Rasmus may well be a .240 hitter in the majors, but it's highly unlikely Bruce will hit .330. More likely Bruce will settle into a .270-.290 BA with at least 30 HR's/ yr with the potential to hit 40+ in several peak years.
Basically, I look at a kid's minor league BA and subtract 20-30 points to project their MLB BA.
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
that is laughable and is rarely accurate
Hanley Ramirez: .297 minors .312 majors. you would make him a .267-.277 hitter according to your metrics.
Miguel Cabrera: .286 minors .313 majors. you would think he is a .256-.266 hitter.
Carlos Beltran: .268 minors .280 majors. you would think he's a .238-.248 hitter.
Rasmus is going to become Beltran or Sizemore IMO with possibly a better average. BA did rank Rasmus as the cardinals prospect who was the best hitter for average.
by Bravesin07 on Mar 3, 2008 9:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Rarely?
Pujols- a .314 BA with power in the minors is impressive and certainly portends doing even better in the majors.
I liked Hanley in the minors and said you had to take the Eastern League context into account. Nobody believed me. I have to admit that I nor hardly anybody else predicted the kind of breakout Hanley had.
Cabrera was so young and played such a short time in the minors, I don't think you can use him as an example of the norm.
Beltran has struggled to maintain an adequate BA and it has hurt his value. That is the main thing keeping him from being an elite player
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 9:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The nod
By the way, I worry most when players have to hit for high BABIP's in order to sustain their minor-league average. Jay has hit .363 on Balls in Play. Colby has batted "only" .331 on BIP.
That said, Bruce is eight months younger than Rasmus and has advanced to AAA, while Rasmus advanced "only" to AA and posted a lower batting average than Bruce posted in AAA (although Rasmus did post a higher OPS by seven points). Jay's OPS in AA was 125 points higher than Colby's was.
Jay could potentially play center field and will likely eventually wind up as a corner outfielder. Couple that with a better bat at a younger age, and I would rate Bruce higher than Rasmus.
That said, Jay's having to rely so heavily on a high BABIP to have his batting average approach .300 would prevent me from ranking him #1 overall.
That said, did I ever blow it when a guy e-mailed me from here last winter to ask whether I thought Tim Lincecum was a better prospect than Bruce. At that point Tim may well have been the better choice, but because of Jay's high strikeout rate, I greatly underestimated him at that time.
It might be interesting to compare Jay's minor-league performance to that of his future teammate Adam Dunn. Clearly Jay Bruce is a much better fielder than Adam -- but will be a clearly better hitter? Dunn is an underrated player, but not quite the type of guy I think of when I think of the top prospect overall.
Dunn was nine months older than Bruce when Adam played his AA/AAA season, but Adam hit .343/.431/.676/1.107 in AA compared to Jay's .333/.405/.652/1.057. Dunn hit .329/.431/.676/1.107 in AAA compared to Bruce's .305/.358/.567/.925.
Bruce's OBP dropped off noticeably from AA to AAA; Adam's did not. Both players maintained their respective batting averages pretty well in moving up, but Adam did so even better than Jay. Jay dropped from 1.96 bases per hit in AA to 1.86 in AAA. Adam actually increase from 1.94 bases per hit in AA to 2.05 in AAA. Both players played for the same teams in AA and in AAA.
Both players had high BABIP's in order to form their high batting averages, but Bruce's .299 minor league average has been supported by a .363 BABIP, while Dunn's slightly higher .304 batting average was supported by the somewhat lower BABIP
of .347.
I prefer Bruce to Rasmus as hitters. But I'm having a hard time seeing Bruce's becoming a much better hitter than Dunn. The key will be whether Bruce can avoid a higher strikeout rate in the majors compared to his one strikeout per 3.94 at bats in the minors. Dunn saw his strikeout rate increase from one per 4.47 at bats in the minors to one per 3.08 at bats in the majors. Despite being younger at the time, Bruce has done a better job of maintaining his strikeout rate as he has advanced through the minors, while Adam's clearly worsened.
Clearly Adam had one or more holes in his swing, and that was further exploited in the majors. Hopefully the scouts can tell us whether Jay had a similar hole or holes. Based on the quick bat John mentioned in his 2008 book, I guess I like Jay not to have his strikeout rate increase much in the major leagues. So I guess I prefer Jay slightly to Adam as a hitter. And I clearly prefer Jay to Colby.
But I am a little uncomfortable having a guy whose minor league experience so closely parallels that of Adam Dunn being the top-rated prospect in the minors. Top 10? You bet. But #1 overall? I'm not nearly so sure.
Clearly Jay Bruce is a much better fielder than Adam Dunn -- but will be a clearly better hitter? Let's just agree that the difference in their fielding is likely to be several times more than the difference in their hitting.
Adam Dunn is an underrated player, but not quite the type of guy I think of when I think of the top prospect overall. Jay seems like a better prospect than Adam was -- but perhaps not enough better to be the #1 overall prospect.
Or maybe it's just a down year for prospects at the top. Or maybe I don't have a clue as to what I am talking about.
But at least it's not Tim Lincecum. Look at the bright side. :)
by sharksrog on Mar 7, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Laughable?
by WayneCampbell05 on Mar 4, 2008 11:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Not Biased
I said Rasmus COULD hit as low as .240. I would discount his .275 BA from last season in the Texas League to .240-.260 in the majors. I SAID I thought Bruce would probably settle in between .270 and .290.
You took the lowest end of my range for Rasmus and highest end of my range for Bruce and totally misrepresented my position.
Hope that clears it up for you.
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 5, 2008 1:04 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bruce in August 2006
by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 1:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bruce had a Maybin like BABIP
by Bravesin07 on Mar 3, 2008 5:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
BABIP is not everything dude...
by doublestix on Mar 3, 2008 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Braves, come on now
Bruce's BABIP was a result of high line drive rates and lots of home runs. Maybin's BABIP was a result of tons of ground balls and being fast. Trying to compare the two is a lack of understanding them.
by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 1:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
How does Upton compare to Bruce?
by ISC on Mar 3, 2008 6:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Upton
by Bravesin07 on Mar 3, 2008 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Which Upton?
by DrBGiantsfan on Mar 3, 2008 8:56 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Fool? Laughable?
I think John nails the small differences that matter right in his original post: Rasmus will be a great, high-average CF (max: Beltran), while Bruce will be a great, high-power corner OF (max: Manny). That really says it all.
I'd love to have either on my favorite ball club, but if I had to choose I'd take Bruce by a hair, mainly for the intangible reasons.
Manny scares opposing pitchers much more than Beltran does.
by DoctorK on Mar 3, 2008 11:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Bruce has a long way to go to get to...
by jfish26101 on Mar 4, 2008 12:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Dusty Baker
what comparison is to be made between Bruce and Patterson except that as Prospects Bruce is/was light years ahead of Corey?
Corey was a failed prospect- people compare current prospects to failed prospects when they want to bench/trade the current prospect.
Me thinks Bruce and Votto will get a lot less PT in 2008 than they would with another manager, let's see how they handle getting jerked around
by Johnny Ruin on Mar 4, 2008 3:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
no, Corey was grossly overrated
Corey hit .261/.329/.491 in AA at 20 and .253/.308/.387 in the PCL at age 21
At 20 Jay Bruce hit .319/.375/.587 in A+AA and AAA
Not even in the same zip code.
Let's look at 2000, Corey was coming off an age 19 season in lo-A when he hit .320.354/.592, that was it, that was the high water mark, he never played that well again anywhere. He was lackluster in the high minors.
Should Corey have been #3 in 2000?
No way in hell- #5 Nick Johnson Just hit .345/.494/.548 in AA- and for all his injuries he's been better than Corey when he's taken the field.
#4 Vernon Wells was 20, coming off a year where he hit .334/.392/.522 combined in A/AA & AAA- he shoudl have been rankled ahead of Corey
Ruben Mateo #6 hit .336/.371/.597 in AAA at age 21, a year after hitting .307/.351/.517 in AA- he flamed out worse than Corey- but in 2000 he should have been ranked higher than Corey
I could go on and on, but if you look at BA's top prospect list from 2000 you seen a bunch of guys WHO AT THE TIME should have been ranked ahead of him. Simply put, ranking Corey so highly was rsiky at teh elast- ranking him #2 the next year was just completely boneheaded.
You can't say that about Bruce- he's #1 on BA's and BPro's 2008 lists- legitimately
by Johnny Ruin on Mar 4, 2008 4:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
no hindsight needed
What BA's (and other's) rankings of Cory P back in 2000/2001 are most interesting for is the extent to which his stats were out of whack compared to his ranking- they consistently ranked him higher than guys who were outproducing him.
20/20 hindsight- they were mistaken to do so.
Andrew McCutchen is probably the position player whose rank is most out of whack with his production on their 2008 list- he's at #14
#14 should probably have been Corey's ranking back in 2000/01 rather than #3 & 2
by Johnny Ruin on Mar 4, 2008 5:04 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Upton
- When drafted out of HS he was regarded the way Griffey, ARod and JD Drew (you can't win em all) a legit once in a generation talent- you are going to throw all that out on one year- especially when said scouts all said his tools were still there?
- people were misreading his stats - he only hit .263/.343/.413 - but league average in the midwest league was .253/.325/.365 and he played in an extreme pitcher's park and he was 18/19 and the league average age was 22. Hew as the 4th youngest guy in a full season league to get regular playing time.
by Johnny Ruin on Mar 4, 2008 5:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"Grossly" is a gross overstatement.
by elrey34 on Mar 4, 2008 6:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
age 20
Bruce was hitting .305/.358/.567 in AAA (IL not PCL), Corey hit .261/.329/.491 in AA
Bruce was significantly outhitting Corey in a tougher league.
An OPS of 820 in AA at 20 is good
An OPS of 925 in AAA at 20 is GREAT
by Johnny Ruin on Mar 4, 2008 6:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
You're neglecting position and defense.
That doesn't even considering baserunning.
by elrey34 on Mar 4, 2008 7:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Depends on what 'successful' means to you
However at the same age the two players weren't very comparable.
Patterson was decently good as a 20 year old in AA. The league average OPS was .703 and Patterson was at .820. Thats real impressive.
Bruce had these numbers
Sarasota - league OPS .713. His OPS .965
Chattanooga - two weeks there, but he killed it.
Louisville - league OPS .730. His OPS .925
So we have an average to slightly above average CF a level higher posting an OPS .195 points higher than the league average compared to a plus CF at a level lower posting an OPS .117 points higher than the league average.
Is it really that close?
Oh, and as far as baserunning, at least as a 20 year old, Patterson was doing more harm than good with his 66% rate when you need to be around 74% to be doing your team a favor.
by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't see Bruce being an average
I'm not saying Bruce = Patterson. Bruce is obviously the better prospect. I wouldn't even say it's way close. They're just closer comps than people are saying in this thread. Both were considered five tool players, both projected good defenders, both projected to have plus power and both played the same position~. I wouldn't make the comp if someone were asking me Major League or even prospect comps, but the point is that we're not comparing Ichiro with Mark Teixeira.
Also, Bruce is a worse baserunner than Patterson. That's the point I was trying to make.
by elrey34 on Mar 5, 2008 2:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Bruce
As for baserunning, Bruce doesn't steal bases all that well, but he is still fast and runs the bases well when the ball is in play, just doesn't steal so well currently.
by dougdirt on Mar 5, 2008 2:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
A scout also said
It just seems to me that if all scouts I've heard of say he should move to a corner sooner rather than later, he wouldn't be an above average center fielder right now. Since projecting an outfielder's ability to play a defensive premium position is relatively easy for scouts to evaluate and agree on, it's hard to go with the outlier.
Looks like we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I won't take what your scout said at face value, but since I sometimes do take what scouts say at face value, I'm not going to give you flak for doing so.
by elrey34 on Mar 5, 2008 3:19 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
