Logan Morrison vs. Justin Smoak

by FishHead on Jun 17, 2008 10:26 PM EDT

I have been running a shadow system for the florida marlins for the past 3 years. this year I drafted justin smoak even though I have Logan Morrison. My question is who is the better prospect? I know most people will say hands down justin smoak but Logan Morrison is thought to have 30-40 hr power, I would give the edge to smoak on defense although I dont know anything about morrison's defense. Who is the better prospect? and also can logan morrison play the outfield?

0 recs | Comment 41 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Hands down Justin Smoak

And as you didn’t proffer any specific reason why Morrison seems better, I’d be interested to hear someone say why it would be otherwise.

by aCone419 on Jun 18, 2008 2:00 AM EDT 0 recs

LOL

How about you offer a specific reason why its hands down Justin Smoak…

by b1leper on Jun 18, 2008 9:24 AM EDT up 0 recs

Because...

...from where I am sitting he looks better in every facet of the game. No need to get specific.

by aCone419 on Jun 18, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

So...

You’d like to hear a specific reason why Morrison seems better to someone else BUT then you say “no need to get specific” as your response to why it’s “Hands down Justin Smoak. Classic.

by Looneyt0on on Jun 19, 2008 11:02 AM EDT up 0 recs

This is not that complicated.

There is no need to get specific because he is better in all the specific ways I could mention. Better hit tool, better power tool, better glove, better pedigree… These are things that seem pretty obvious to me, so I would like to hear in what facet the OP or anyone thinks Morrison best Smoak.

by aCone419 on Jun 19, 2008 4:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

This is not about who's a better prospect

It’s about looking at data. Smoak will likely perform somewhere around Morrison’s level at High A, at a higher age per level. It just leads to interesting conversations, and how important MiLB stats are in projecting future major league success.

by bucklin12 on Jun 19, 2008 4:41 PM EDT up 0 recs

Response

Quoted from the original post:

“My question is who is the better prospect?”

by mrkupe on Jun 19, 2008 5:05 PM EDT up 0 recs

As mrkupe points out...

That is exactly what we are discussing, at least, that’s what the OP asked and to what I was responding.

Interesting that 3 people have responded to chastise me for whatever reason, but none of them have actually addressed my question. In what way is Logan Morrison better? If you think that there is a question as to who is better overall, surely you can explain to me at least one way you feel that Morrison beats out Smoak?

by aCone419 on Jun 19, 2008 6:10 PM EDT up 0 recs

Response

Anything I have said is not meant to prove that Morrison is a better prospect than Smoak. I have reiterated several times that, I’m not trying to say that. My question all along is how, “without a doubt,” does everyone know that Smoak will be far and above a better MLB contributer than someone like Logan Morrison? Morrison is a 20 year old mashing in the Florida State League, an extreme pitchers league. There aren’t many of those players around. Who’s to say that Smoak is already
much more valuable than that?

by bucklin12 on Jun 19, 2008 8:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not the question

I can appreciate that this was all you were saying, but my question was directed towards the original poster, who seemed to think there was some specific reason Morrison might be the better prospect, all things considered. All I wanted to know is what that reason was.

I don’t think anyone said “without a doubt” Smoak will be a better MLBer. That’s not how prospecting works; but all the evidence points to it, or so it seems to me. If someone wants to give me a reason otherwise, well, that’s all I’ve been asking for.

by aCone419 on Jun 19, 2008 11:40 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yeah...

If you’re looking for a reason from someone who’s saying Morrison is better, then I’m probably not your guy. I don’t necessarily think Morrison is better. But, the logic I do see on Morrison’s side is that the likelihood of Smoak OPSing 900 in the FSL at the age of 20 (2 years ago) is pretty unlikely. Morrison is already doing that. That’s the trouble with prospecting. It appears Morrison has some serious serious talent. What if he wasn’t evaluated correctly coming into the draft (which happens all of the time)? What if he went in the 1st round (which is how he has performed his entire career)? Would we even be having this conversation now? Probably not.

by bucklin12 on Jun 20, 2008 9:21 AM EDT up 0 recs

Age

Smoak is less than a year older than Morrison, and I think it would be somewhat disappointing if he didn’t match what Morrison is doing this year. But even if he didn’t, that doesn’t make Morrison better. In A ball, scouting reports and projection are just as important as production, if not more so.

For the record, I think Morrison’s statistical prowess is being overrated in this thread. He has done very well this season, but I would certainly dispute the claim that “he has performed his entire career” like a first rounder; his career OPS was under .800 under very recently. Good, not great.

by aCone419 on Jun 20, 2008 2:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

Sure

Logan struggled after being drafted, but what youngster doesn’t? It’s a tough transition to wood bats.

What’s not impressive about his stats? His low K rate? His improving OBA & SLG? Hitting better in a pitcher’s park? Having essentially equivalent OPS either at home or on the road? And being young for the level he’s at?

I’m not saying he’s better than Smoak. I drafted Justin in my NL only league before the season and I’m still cursing the Reds, Astros & Nats for passing on him, especially Houston. argh Anyways, I don’t know why you’re holding his first 150 AB against him in comparison to his last 700. If he keeps this pace up, he’ll be a top 25 prospect to me.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Jun 22, 2008 12:04 AM EDT up 0 recs

What the hell is with people in this thread

I am not trashing Logan Morrison, and I am certainly not holding anything against him. He is a good prospect, and I said as much. Get a grip.

by aCone419 on Jun 22, 2008 12:47 AM EDT up 0 recs

Grip This

You said “his statistic prowess is being overrated in this thread”. I want to know your reasons for saying this. In what possible way are his statistics and development “overrated”?

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Jun 22, 2008 3:22 AM EDT up 0 recs

Just stop

This is going to be my last post in this thread, since for some reason people would rather bicker over my phrasing than even attempt to answer the simple comparison question I raised.

1) I never even commented on his “development” so the fact that you think I claimed it was overrated is joining annoying.

2) His statistics, in general, are not overrated. In fact, as I am having to repeat yet again, they are GOOD. But IN THIS THREAD they have been SOMEWHAT. You are free to disagree, but I am not going to waste time expounding upon something so pointless and to someone who seems to read what he wants to read in my posts.

by aCone419 on Jun 22, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up 0 recs

Ah

The last refuge of a weak mind. Unable to defend his position, he goes to the cliche “you won’t understand so I’m not going to waste my time” tactic. Thanks. I’ll keep that in mind you spout off some indefensible claptrap. The mere fact that you can’t defend your position is the all the proof I need to know it’s untenable.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Jun 22, 2008 8:46 PM EDT up 0 recs

oh, and ...

he couldn’t afford to upgrade his nick to 420

by pedrophile on Jun 23, 2008 1:28 AM EDT up 0 recs

Response

Oh, definitely Smoak. Switch-hitter with great plate discipline. I think his power grades out slightly better, and his glove is way better.

In terms of relative ranking . . .it’d be like comparing Prince Fielder to Mike Jacobs in 2005.

by mrkupe on Jun 18, 2008 2:35 PM EDT 0 recs

Hmm

I’m not sure that’s a good comparison. Fielder didn’t go to college before turning pro.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

by WayneCampbell08 on Jun 22, 2008 12:09 AM EDT up 0 recs

Smoak in a landslide

I have something that would seem to be closer to the scenario you’re laying out.

In my shadow organization, I have Josh Vitters, Josh Bell, and Stephen King (who the Nats seem to be transitioning to 3B from SS). I’d probably put them in that order, but with Bell, it’s no slam dunk given that he’s shown a massive power ceiling.

Of course it’s all kind of a moot point with Alex Gordon and Josh Fields above them at 3B and Kotchman and Smoak at 1B/DH.

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

by JM Barten on Jun 18, 2008 4:20 PM EDT 0 recs

How long have you been doing shadow drafts?

I started in 2006 and I also do international signings(its a weird process) and right now i have hank conger (instead of brett sinkbeil) and francisco pena at c/1b and I also have logan morrison and justin smoak at 1b. My of is also logjammed now with hermida and maybin at the higher levels and michael stanton, destin hood, isaac galloway, and matt marquis. Looks like I got trade potential. But id like to hear more about what you do and how your team is.

by FishHead on Jun 18, 2008 7:56 PM EDT up 0 recs

Not so fast...

I’m not at all saying that Morrison is a better player than Smoak, because given the choice I would select Smoak pretty easily. But…

Logan Morrison is in a pitchers league (FSL), putting up a very very solid .327/.398/.498/.896 (4th highest OPS in the FSL) and he is still a year younger than Smoak is right now (20 years old). It’s not like this came out of nowhere, he OPS’d .827 in the Sally last year as a 19 year old.

If Smoak is putting up the same numbers next year in High A as a 22 year old, I think the Rangers would be more than pleased. The gap really isn’t that severe, if it even exists.

by bucklin12 on Jun 18, 2008 4:32 PM EDT 0 recs

Response

Are you talking about a “statistical” gap or are you talking about their actual ability to perform? You first say that you’d take Smoak easily and then you later say that there really isn’t much of a difference between the two, if there is any difference at all. So what exactly are you suggesting?

If you want to take this from a purely sabermetric perspective, using statistics and age-relative-to-league, then it’s going to be very hard for Smoak to win decisively in this argument. It’s not because he’s any lesser a player than Morrison (and in fact, I think he’s markedly better than Morrison), it’s because the fact that he spent 3 years in college puts him at an undeserved disadvantage when being compared using such criteria to Morrison, a guy who went to pro ball out of high school.

by mrkupe on Jun 18, 2008 5:03 PM EDT up 0 recs

Yep

I realize that sounded a little conflicting. I should have clarified, that in a statistical manner I honestly don’t foresee Smoak outperforming Morrison by a huge degree. Any and all speculation about the difference in value between the two players is all based upon subjective experience. There’s no comparable stats. While the consesus is obvious that Smoak will be the better player, there’s also not much reason to absolutely disclaim that Morrison could end up as a relative equal if not better than Smoak.

by bucklin12 on Jun 18, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up 0 recs

Response

One of these guys is a switch-hitter with a great eye at the plate. The other has a decent eye at the plate and is probably going to be a platoon player due to lack of production against left-handed pitching.

One of these guys is an excellent defensive first baseman and if not GG caliber should at least be above-average. The other is going to have to push hard to be ML average at first base.

Sure, Morrison could end up being better than Smoak . . .but given that Smoak projects to have a better bat AND a better glove at this point, I don’t see a reason to suggest that Morrison is the superior prospect based on anything other than a desire to be different.

FWIW, I’m pretty certain that a very rough but workable comparison of statistics could be had, if one had the pertinent information.

by mrkupe on Jun 18, 2008 5:52 PM EDT up 0 recs

I disagree

The college hitter is not at a built in disadvantage and it is in fact very easy for him to win decicively. The 22 year old is expected to be more developed physically, mentally, and emotionally, regardless of whether he went to college or not. For a couple of examples of older college guys that dominate Logan Morrison (age 20, .896 OPS, A+), rank Matt Wieters (age 22, 1.029 OPS, A+) and Matt LaPorta (age 23, 1.021 OPS, AA) against him. This is a violent beating in favor of both, even if you rate Wieters at 1b.

The reason Smoak is a better prospect than Morrison is because the Rangers expect him to get throgh his wood bat adjustment this year, spank high A early next year, spank AA in the middle of next year, and provide MLB value late next year. That’s what prospects that are a year older and better than Logan Morrison do.

To the OP, Both of these guys are good prospects, but Smoak is better…decicively if the reports are true. There is still a chance that neither of these guys can hit AA pitching, so you might as well plan on holding on to both and get back to us next July. We’ll probably come up with the same answer, but it will be more sound with more information.

by rwperu34 on Jun 19, 2008 7:08 PM EDT up 0 recs

"High A"

re: “If Smoak is putting up the same numbers next year in High A as a 22 year old, I think the Rangers would be more than pleased. “

I don’t know if this is true of the Rangers. Smoak was an advanced college hitter at a position which a) isn’t demanding, and b) he’s already very good at. I think the Rangers are probably hoping for something next year more like what LaPorta’s doing this year, which is a .600 slugging% at AA. And, if it wasn’t for Chris Davis, I wouldn’t have been entirely shocked to see Smoak in the bigs this year, ala Ryan Zimmerman. Chris Shelton certainly isn’t getting the job done

I think Morrison is a good prospect who will hit, and appears to be consistently underrated. But I won’t totally jump on the bandwagon until he makes the AA transition.

by BobbyMac on Jun 19, 2008 11:01 AM EDT up 0 recs

Well, sure they're hoping he hits like Laporta

But I think they’d be quite satisfied if he put up an .850 or a .900 OPS in A+ this year

by OldProspects on Jun 19, 2008 1:06 PM EDT up 0 recs

years

Well, this year, yes. I agree 100%.

by BobbyMac on Jun 19, 2008 1:13 PM EDT up 0 recs

This could all be true...

And I might even agree with everything, but besides the fact that he is a switch hitter (which is an attribute far overrated) this is all subjective information. Of all the college prospects who scouts say have “gold glove” caliber defense, only a small percentage of them actually end up translating that level of defense. This has nothing to do with who is a better prospect.

All I’m trying to get across is there isn’t a lot of objective reason to say that Morrison has some kind of small chance at being a more productive major leaguer than Smoak.

by bucklin12 on Jun 18, 2008 6:25 PM EDT 0 recs

Response

Why is being a switch-hitter far overrated? Switch-hitters cause matchup problems, and certainly it’s of significant positive value when the switch-hitter is being compared to a guy who may well be a platoon player if he makes it to the majors.

And yes, I agree with you concerning the GG caliber defense comments . . .but then again, I would hope that you noticed that I accounted for that already. While I’m not prepared to say that Smoak is going to win Gold Gloves, I don’t think it’s wrong to project his glove as being above-average or even plus. Once again, it IS of significant value. This is especially true when we’re comparing him to a guy like Morrison, who was considered a defensive albatross not all that long ago and still doesn’t project to be anything more than average with the glove, even by his backers.

Defense has a LOT to do with how a player is perceived as a prospect and their future projected productivity. This isn’t fantasy baseball here.

by mrkupe on Jun 19, 2008 1:48 AM EDT up 0 recs

Switchies...

I tend to agree that they are overrated. I heard a stat on ESPN the other day (they were talking about the seasons Chipper and Berkman were having) and they stated that only like two or three switchies in history have a career BA over 303 (maybe 302? Somewhere in there). Most switch hitters still struggle against one side, or their splits are still pretty far apart, so becoming a switch hitter doesn’t give you a distinct advantage.

"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 Jun 19, 2008 2:34 AM EDT up 0 recs

Agreed

Take William Lance Berkman as a perfect example. Does he cause a match up problem? Sure maybe a little, but prior to this season you know in a tough spot your bringing in a lefty against him.

Most switching players are not equally talented at both sides of the plate.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 19, 2008 9:33 AM EDT up 0 recs

bring in a lefty...

Which lefty are you going to bring in? The one who’s passably good against RHB and isn’t a starter or closer? Seems like a very short list to me.

by BobbyMac on Jun 19, 2008 11:12 AM EDT up 0 recs

I have no idea what your talking about

There are good lefty relief pitchers in baseball, not everyone is a LOOGY. But that is besides the point.

The point is, all things equal you’d rather pitch to William as a righty as opposed to a lefty. And the larger point is that most switch hitters are not equally as talented from both sides.

Remember: baseball guys... baseball...

by Metty5 on Jun 19, 2008 1:39 PM EDT up 0 recs

Maybe

we should let Smoak play a few games first. My gut says he’s definitely the better prospect, and I’ll be shocked if it doesn’t turn out that way. But I’m inclined to let draft picks play a while in the pros before I count my chickens.

...and curse Sir Sidney Ponson, he was such a stupid git.

by t ball on Jun 18, 2008 7:07 PM EDT 0 recs