Last years rookies-top prospects for future performance #1
by Dalman on Nov 10, 2009 10:51 PM EST
Email
Print
Okay, here goes. Rookie of the year awards are on the immediate horizon, but that award essentially is given to the player of the year among rookies. The question we are asking here is who is the very best prospect for future major league performance among players who used up their rookie eligibiltiy in 2009. The draft list I posted yesterday seems to have gone over pretty well. I don't think anyone said that their top three players weren't on that list, although there was some disagreement with a couple of the players who were included.
I'll agree that Porcello shouldn't be in the first round and add Rasmus in his place. Second round we will remove the player who is picked and the bottom two vote getters, and add three others in their place, probably chosen from among Fowler, Maybin, Tillman, Snider and Porcello, although any and all other suggestions of who to add in the next round will certainly be taken into account.
I think I can guess who #1 will be, lets see what the margin turns out to be. As for players to add next, suggest away!
41 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Trevor Cahill
could be added.
http://www.examiner.com/x-28775-MLB-Draft-Examiner
twitter | jesseburkhart AIM | jb02186
by jesse.burkhart on Nov 10, 2009 10:55 PM EST reply actions
Say what?
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
hanson
i would have voted for brett anderson..but hanson plays in the NL which gives him an advantage.. so i went with thomas hanson
Though he's playing a lower value position, the season that Andrew Bailey had was fairly remarkable
Should be due some consideration sooner or later
not really
hes a bullpen arm and they are no way as valuable as the 8 mentioned here and the possible 5 or more next in line that could have been mentioned
by matthewmafa on Nov 10, 2009 11:16 PM EST up reply actions
Wieters
I don’t trust pitchers enough to vote them this high. Too high a risk of injury and declined performance. That leaves me with a few guys on the poll and I went with the guy who plays the most premium position.
if anything
a catcher has the highest risk of declined performance from Catching… their knees?? look at russell martin.. and a lot others..
by matthewmafa on Nov 10, 2009 11:24 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, but...
Wieters’ bat plays at 1B if he’s gettign beaten up behind the plate.
but if hes at first
his value obviously goes down..
by matthewmafa on Nov 11, 2009 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
top catching prospects have turned out very well
Because there is 20 years of data readily available I took a look at super-elite prospects who were listed as catchers by BA to see how they turned out. In 20 years there is only one true comparable for Wieters—a #1 prospect in all of baseball, and that is Mauer. In so far as someone at his age and level of experience can be said to be on a glide path to the Hall of Fame, that is where Mauer is right now.
Expanding to top 10, there is Sandy Alomar, who only exceeded 400 plate appearances four times, but nonetheless managed a 20 year career including six all star games, Pudge Rodriguez, who is if anything overqualified for the hall of fame, Carlos Delgado who caught only a few major league games but is near hall of fame calibre purely on his bat, Charles Johnson (good but not great player with 2 all star games and four gold gloves), Ben Davis (undistigunished 1500 at bat career), and the aforementioned Joe Mauer.
That’s a pretty darn good list, especially since I am mostly comparing Wieters to players who he was clearly perceived as being better than when they showed up in the majors.
The four who stick out for me are Wieters, Beckham, Anderson and Hanson. I think that’s the first tier. Lot of good players on this list, though.
+1
McCutchen doesn’t get enough credit. How many guys are there in the majors who have plus speed, discipline, and power while playing solid defense in CF? The fact that McCutch did it at 22 is pretty remarkable. Certainly moreso than what Beckham did, and I’d take him over any of the pitchers as well.
David Price
His stock has fallen…Of those 3 pitchers he is probably the worst of that group.
Grab Some Pine Meat!
David Price would have had to win the Cy Young to live up to all the hype and expectations. 2009 was very much a learning year for him. He may have been the fourth best pitcher on this list in 2009, but it would be ludicrous to assume last year was Price’s true talent level. Give that group a few more years and we’ll see where they end up. I’m not saying he’ll be the best, but that it’s simply too early to say which one of those pitchers is the best and which one is the worst.
My uncle says you've got a screw loose.
Your uncle molests collies.
by gorilla_baller on Nov 11, 2009 8:33 AM EST up reply actions
I wasn't saying he was bad
I was just saying that people expected him to be great…After that year I think most teams would prefer Hanson and Anderson
Grab Some Pine Meat!
I agree with Gorilla, too early to make comments like that. With any luck, all of those guys will be pitching 10+ years, pretty silly to write any of them off after their first season. All Price has to do is gain confidence with his other pitches and be more consistent with his FB. He showed signs of being the pitcher everyone thought he would be, that alone is enough to delay passing judgement.
Am I alone in thinking what Hanson did isn't all THAT special?
I mean, his two best “skills” last year were keeping BABIP and HR/F down. I’m just not sure I see him doing that again. If we’re talking pitchers, then give me Anderson, who got it done in a way that was repeatable.
I don't know...
both his swinging strike % and his K% are good, but not great. Why you’d take the guy who K’s one more guy per 18 innings over the guy with far superior command, control, and GB rates, I have no idea.
because one has the advantage of playing in the NL
while the other plays in the AL
Are those factors somehow absent from the 2009 numbers?
Because it would be really cool if they were.
Way to put words into my mouth.
Also, sample size.
by Daniel Berlyn on Nov 11, 2009 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
re: Cahill
I totally agree that Cahill is in the mix at some point. But, I have to say that I like Porcello a little better at this point, not to mention that I can’t imagine Cahill getting any serious consideration until Anderson drops, given their similar rankings going into last year and Anderson’s far better performance last year.
Coghlan as a 2nd round nominee
I’m not saying that he should be in the mix for this first round, but if as expected he moves to 2B he could put up .305/.375/.450 and become a 3-4 WAR type (assuming he isn’t a butcher at 2B which he was average in the minors at) who battles for the batting crown in his peak years.
He could project be anywhere from 2005-2007 Freddy Sanchez with greater speed and ISOP to Brian Roberts with less speed and equal or slightly better ISOP.
by two fishsticks on Nov 11, 2009 11:55 AM EST reply actions
Several position players belong on the list first
but Anderson’s head and shoulders above the other rookie starters for this season. Great stuff, 3:1 strikeout to walk ratio, groundballs, mental makeup— there’s no area (other than maybe fielding his position) in which he is not already an above-average MLB pitcher.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Anderson is head and shoulders above Tommy Hanson?
Considering Hanson had a slight edge in FIP and Anderson had a slight edge in tRA, I’d have to say its pretty much a toss up at this point. If we were just talking about who is better, I could see an argument for Anderson based on league, but since we’re talking about performance going forward that seems like it should be irrelevant since Hanson gets to pitch in the easier league for the foreseeable future.
I don’t know, it just seems like an argument that comes down to what you prefer from your pitchers. Anderson is going to give you a better K:BB ratio and GB rate, while Hanson will strike out a few more guys. In terms of stuff, Anderson has the better FB SL combo, but Hanson probably has a better 3 pitch mix with his great CB.
I guess my main point is that there isn’t really a true better choice between the two like you imply.
FIP ignores HR/F
Which is why it’s been improved upon by other stats.
I know that,
but has there been any sort of conclusive study showing that limiting HR/FB isn’t a repeatable skill? If not, then saying that other stats (I guess xFIP namely) have improved upon it by treating every pitcher as if they should have the same HR/FB rate seems more like an opinion than anything else.
No, it's a fact
xFIP and tRA correlate better to next year’s runs allowed than FIP does, by a significant margin.
HR/FB is a marginal skill— it’s not completely luck; some guys like Matt Cain are actually good at it— but I’d be uncomfortable taking less than 4 or 5 years’ worth of data for the gospel. Anderson and Hanson aren’t anywhere near that yet.
Linda's in the cold ground, won't see her anymore
Somewhere out on the highway tonight, the drunken engines roar
It's just one of those things, one of those things
-- Al Stewart, "Accident on 3rd St."
In memory of Nick Adenhart and all victims of drunk driving
Not that I doubt it
but do you have any links to the work showing this? I’m a bit of a math nerd, and I’d rather be able to see the methods and results instead of just being told thats the way it is. I don’t doubt that they correlate better, but again I have no idea what you mean by a significant margin and I have no idea what sort of methods they are using. I’d be a lot more comfortable if I could actually check their work and even reproduce it if I so desired.
Also...
You never really addressed any of the points I raised. You say Anderson is head and shoulders ahead of Hanson, but even if we look at tRA Anderson’s advantage is just .14 points (3.66 to 3.80). Also, keep in mind that Anderson had more time to adjust to the majors than Hanson did, and Hanson looked like a completely different pitcher from August onward as he went from around 6 K/9 to well over 10.
you're cherry picking
hanson’s improvement from august on is very similar to anderson’s improvement from early july on…
anderson went from a league average pitcher to a top ten pitcher at age 21 in the AL… i like his long term outlook slightly better than hanson due to his control
Not cherrypicking at all
Both made big strides once they had a few months to adjust to the majors. Since Anderson was in the majors earlier he adjusted earlier, as you point out, and was able to pitch at a high level for an extra month or two because of his head start. When we’re talking about an extremely small difference in stats (Anderson’s tRA was less than 4% better than Hanson’s) the fact that Hanson’s stats are dragged down more by his adjustment period definitely makes a difference. Again, I’ve never been arguing that Hanson is better than Anderson. All I did was take exception to the comment that Anderson was head and shoulders ahead of Hanson.
Answer
The only reason Paul said that is the fact he’s a complete A’s homer.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
by WayneCampbell08 on Nov 17, 2009 9:37 AM EST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 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.
