Cincinnati Reds Top 20 Prospects for 2010
by John Sickels on Jan 14, 2010 10:34 PM EST
Email
PrintTop 20 Cincinnati Reds Prospects for 2010
All grades are EXTREMELY PRELIMINARY and subject to change. Don't get too worried about exact rankings at this point, especially once you get beyond the Top 10. Grade C+/C guys are pretty interchangeable depending on what you want to emphasize. Complete reports on these and over 1,000 other players will be in the 2010 Baseball Prospect Book, now available for pre-order, shipping on February 2nd!
1) Aroldis Chapman, LHP, Grade A-: Could be a truly amazing pitcher if it all comes together, but there's obvious risk here given the need for cultural adjustment, as well as potential command issues.
2) Todd Frazier, INF-OF, Grade B+: Doesn't quite have Alonso's offensive upside, but much more versatile defensively and a very solid hitter in his own right. I like him a lot.
3) Yonder Alonso, 1B, Grade B+: Borderline B. Kills right-handers, but inability to hit lefties is an issue and how do they get him into a lineup with Votto? Stock will drop if he doesn't start to solve lefties next year.
4) Mike Leake, RHP, Grade B: Borderline B+. Might bump him up the notch, haven't decided yet. Outstanding pitchability and athleticism, and I think his stuff is a bit underrated by some people. Shouldn't take long to fit into the rotation. While perhaps "only" a number three starter, what's wrong with that?
5) Chris Heisey, OF, Grade B: Just a very solid player, looks like a .280, 15-homer, 15-steal guy.
6) Juan Francisco, 3B, Grade B-: Borderline C+ due to strike zone issues. Could be a genuine monster if he gets the zone under control, but major league pitchers will eventually exploit his current approach. Is he really a 3B?
7) Brad Boxberger, RHP, Grade B-: Could move quickly if used in the bullpen, but needs better command to rank higher.
8) Travis Wood, LHP, Grade C+: Outstanding comeback season last year, but looks more like a four/five starter based on his stuff. Ranks ahead of Maloney since he's younger.
9) Matt Maloney, LHP, Grade C+: I have always liked this guy as a possible four/five starter. Great K/BB ratios with good strikeout rates despite average stuff. Main worry is home run tendency.
10) Zack Cozart, SS, Grade C+: Took a big step forward with his plate discipline last year, good glove, has some pop, but probably just a .240 hitter.
11) Donnie Joseph, LHP, Grade C+: Relief arm from the University of Houston should move quickly, lots of strikeouts, won't have to be stuck in LOOGY role.
12) Billy Hamilton, SS, Grade C+: Great athleticism, but will need time to develop the bat. Defensive value puts him a little ahead of the tools outfielders listed below.
13) Josh Fellhauer, OF, Grade C+: David DeJesus type.
14) Chris Valaika, SS, Grade C+: Gets an injury mulligan but has to get the bat going again quickly or he'll drop fast in '10.
15) Neftali Soto, 3B, Grade C: Great tools, terrible approach, still young.
16) Yorman Rodriguez, OF, Grade C: Yes, yes, I know all about his tools. If you go just by tools he's a top ten guy. If you go by skills he's not in the top 20 or 30. Since I look at both tools and skills he ends up here in a compromise position. He could turn into something good, but the risk of failure is too great for me to rank him higher at this point. See Neftali Soto.
17) Juan Silva, OF, Grade C: Pretty solid tools, and he was effective in rookie ball. Sleeper for the top ten next year.
18) Juan Duran, OF, Grade C: See Yorman Rodriguez.
19) Juan Carlos Sulbaran, RHP, Grade C: Dayton numbers aren't great, but I like his arm and I think he could break through next year.
20) Enerio Del Rosario, RHP, Grade C: Ground ball machine for the bullpen.
OTHERS (Grade C): Tucker Barnhart, C; Matt Fairel, LHP: Mark Fleury, C; Mariekson Gregorius, SS: Sean Henry, OF; Harold Johnson, RHP; Matt Klinker, RHP; Sam Lecure, RHP; Devin Mesoraco, C; Logan Ondrusek, RHP; Brian Pearl, RHP; Henry Rodriguez, SS; Miguel Rojas, SS; Mark Serrano, RHP; Daniel Tuttle, RHP; Phillippe Valiquette, LHP; Pedro Viola, LHP.
I'm having to get increasingly ruthless with cutting Grade C guys. Don't feel ripped off; all the teams I did earlier are going to lose guys, too. I'll put the guys who get cut into some sort of "outtakes" post. Also don't get too hung up on the exact ranking of guys outside the top 10.
The Reds have an interesting top group, with Cuban defector Chapman the headliner of course. I like both Frazier and Alonso for different reasons, although Yonder needs to make some adjustments or his stock will start dropping. Leake is a lot of fun to watch, and Heisey is a great value as a 17th round pick who could end up being a decent regular.
After that things get very muddled. You have a large batch of toolsy Latin players with big power potential (Francisco, Soto, Y. Rodriguez, Duran) but no clue about the strike zone. Francisco is the closest to being ready and I'm impressed that he could hit so well without any command of the zone, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the rest of them bust no matter how good their tools are. Their youth saves them for now; they have time to figure it out. Watch Juan Silva out of Puerto Rico, who does seem to have a feel for the game.
On the other hand, polished college products like Zack Cozart and Josh Fellhauer could be good role players but don't have the same kind of upside as the younger guys. Frazier seems to have the best balance between tools and skills of all the top prospects.
The pitching side is also muddled. You have pitchability lefties in Wood and Maloney, the wild card Boxberger, possible bullpen contributors Joseph and Del Rosario, and the live-armed but raw Sulbaran. There are several Grade Cs who could contribute, with Matt Klinker, Matt Fairel, Sam Lecure, Logan Ondrusek, and Pedro Viola all possibly able to help in '10.
Overall there are things for Reds fans to look forward to. Much of the major league core is young, and Chapman brings some excitement. On the other hand, I never did figure out what the point of trading prospects for Scott Rolen was, which kind of fits with the muddled theme amidst the bright spots.
102 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I love Chapman's stuff but
Am I the only person that noticed that this kid has some mental issues. When I saw him pitch in the WBC after every close pitch he’d show up the ump and act like a 10 Y.O. that just had his candy taken away from him. I understand that he’s “21” but his composure could break him before his command.
by Jay212033 on Jan 14, 2010 11:46 PM EST via mobile reply actions
Lets not overstate this
Plenty of big market teams were willing to bid a lot of money on him… they got oubid.
They did...
Bid about 16 million, didn’t see any reports that they ever bid more than that.
by Franchise887 on Jan 15, 2010 3:10 PM EST up reply actions
Perhaps
But there have been several hotheads who have gone on to have pretty remarkable MLB careers – Kevin Brown, Curt Schilling, Roger Clemens
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 15, 2010 12:11 PM EST up reply actions
John
Chapman an A- really? This seems to go against how you normally grade IFA. Chapman has got great talent no doubt but he is every bit as raw as Yorman who has what I would think is a similar ceiling. Chapman has the big FB but I’ve read reports that his FB velocity is so inconsistent ranging from 90-100. it is also so tough to get an accurate read on Cuban players on what is fact and what is myth. Often Cuban players seem to be a bit overrated because the scouting reports are often mixed w/ myths. Chapmans secondary stuff and control is very raw. You graded Ynoa as a B- in 2009 and I don’t see much diffrence in talent or question marks for the 2. I’m not 1 to normally even comment on a grade or ranking because there is so many diffrent factors for each person but this seems to be a huge leap of faith on a player that you normally are very conservative on. Just my 2 cents and keep up the overall good work.
What I'm wondering...
Is what is so diffrent about him then every other high profile IFA?
You don’t see the difference between a 21 year old that has been pitching professionally in Cuba and in international competition for over 3 years and 16 year olds that have only thrown in scouting showcases and zero organized games?
Age and Competition
Most IFAs are some random 16-18 year old and has had little to no exposure. You watch workouts, see maybe a few live action games, but for the most part you don’t know what you are getting. For example, you use Ynoa, and that’s fine. But comparing a 16 year old kid with no pro experience to a 21 year old who has thrown in international competitions is not a comparison. The scouting reports on Chapman are from the WBC, not some dog and pony show (and no, this is not the time to rip on the WBC). There is a significant difference between the two.
So, the report on Chapman is that he’s just in his young prime (low 20s) and has pitched on an international stage with the Cuban National team. So, here’s where you have a lefty starter who hits triple digits on the gun who flashes a plus slider, but iffy command.
Now, there’s been a lot of loose comparisons between chapman and strasburg (mostly on money), but there is an apt comparison to be made for prospect ranking. Strasburg is at a similar age, with similar stuff (although more honed) and is a righty. John gave him an A. Chapman is a lefty, with slightly diminished stuff (less of a third pitch) and may need an extra year. I would have no qualms if you say Chapman maybe is a B+ because of his inconsistencies, but to say he’s on the same level with Ynoa appears asinine.
I'm baffled
as to how someone can’t tell the difference between Chapman and a typical 16-yr. old IFA. He’s FIVE years older and has played against much more significant competition.
G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....
Its like people keep asking "Why is John treating Chapman differently than most IFA's?"
Well, he’s different. That’s why.
Chapman has got great talent no doubt but he is every bit as raw as Yorman who has what I would think is a similar ceiling.
This is nonsense.
Nonsense?
I was just asking John’s opinion on what is so diffrent about Chapman. Obviously I understand he’s older but I’ve read reports varying from he walks on water to his FB velo varies because of rawness (not sure if that’ s a word) or possible arm troubles to come in the future. Color me skeptical was all I was trying to say. If John is on board then I have to give it some weight since he normally does not jump hype. Please don’t act like I’m some moron because I don’t jump on the Chapman bandwagon.
Nothing wrong with asking questions
I’m not even particularly on board the “Chapman bandwagon” myself, but the statement I quoted is, in fact, nonsense. Chapman is hardly a finished product, but his profile involves waaaaaay less projection than Yorman’s. Rodriguez has almost zero usable baseball skills at this point; he’s all tools.
Yonder
So if he figures out lefties, Votto is the one that is expected to move to LF, not Alonso… Correct?
Votto is the better athlete
so the assumption is that Votto is better suited for the OF.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Jan 15, 2010 10:42 AM EST up reply actions
Alonso or Votto
I expect that Alonso will be traded before Votto moves to LF. My speculation is that both Alonso and Francisco (another prospect rumored as a possibility in LF) will be trade bait in July or the next offseason to fill gaps in the Reds lineup at SS or C.
yeah
i can see a number of these upper-level guys shipped out in the next year or so. Frazier, Alonso, Heisey, and Francisco are all basically fighting for that LF position. i think there is still a possibility they entertain the idea of Votto in LF, but i think that would only be a possibility if Alonso proves himself to be miles better than the other 3. which is to say, not very likely.
by Charlie Scrabbles on Jan 15, 2010 12:15 PM EST up reply actions
A shortstop you say?
I think the Reds have to be higher on Alonso than most of the rest of us because if they wanted a SS they could have had one in Gordon Beckham. That’s not 20/20 hindsight, either – it was a curious move at the time and most analysts thought Beckham was the better fit.
Look at Goldstein’s mock draft: http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7615
8. Chicago White Sox
The White Sox would love to get a shortstop like Gordon Beckham into their system, but with him off of the board, they’ll turn to one of the many slugging first basemen from the college ranks. The obvious candidates are Alonso and Smoak, with the longstanding rumor about Arizona State’s Brett Wallace as a dark horse beginning to die out over the last week. Currently there is a split in house as to which is the superior prospect, Alonso or Smoak, but perhaps what is most telling is that during last weekend’s conference tournaments, Kenny Williams went to the SEC games to see Smoak, and not the ACC to see Alonso. That could mean nothing, or it could mean everything, but the general consensus in the industry is that Smoak is the better talent.
Selection: Justin Smoak, 1B, South Carolina
I also think Alonso is losing trade value. If he’s not doing the kinds of things in the minors that force the Reds to contemplate moving Votto to LF, then he’s not going to be that interesting to other teams. He might be dealt, but he’s not bringing back a top C or SS prospect.
Sure
If you’re the Rays.
The Reds should trade their #3 prospect plus more for a 30 year old who’s coming off not just a career year, but a “Brady Anderson hits 50 HRs” career year? And not just any 30 year old, but one who’s defense has gotten markedly worse every single year, especially as he’s played mroe? Yea, right.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
Okay, but...
…the real point as far as I’m concerned is that this is probably the best the Reds could hope to do in addressing SS or C by trading Alonso. If you don’t like the proposed deal, I could understand, but what’s your proposal?
I would think
The Reds would be better served in trading for a similar type player – a B-level player with a high ceiling if he overcomes a serious flaw. I don’t know enough about other teams’ minor league systems to know what SS or C fits that bill.
But trading Alonzo+ for an aging, poor defensive, about to get expensive SS coming off a season way out of whack with the rest of his career doesn’t address the problem. Bartlett was below replacement level in hitting the previous two seasons; the Reds already have a starting SS like that who alot better defensively, younger, and alot cheaper; in fact, considering playing time, Janish ‘09 looks alot like Bartlett ’07-’08.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
Bartlett was below replacement level in hitting the previous two seasons
No he wasn’t. He was below average. There’s a big difference.
I lean towards this side
Not only those above points, but its two years of Bartlett (and his arb/expensive years!) for 6 of Alonso.
I dont thinks its an absurd trade, but I wouldnt do it… so expect Jocketty to get this one finalized by next Tuesday…
Alonso for Brignac is more fair, but that doesnt thrill me, either.
Brignac
I agree it’s MORE fair, but I wouldn’t say it’s exactly fair. On that point, and responding to sidnancy above, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect to trade a B- level first baseman like Alonso for a B- level shortstop like Brignac.
I’m waving the white flag on the Bartlett thing, for now, but if the Rays are struggling and the Reds are in the Central race this year….who knows.
Why not?
I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect to trade a B- level first baseman like Alonso for a B- level shortstop like Brignac
Sure, SS (and C) are more valuable than 1B all else being equal, but all else isn’t equal because if Alonzo fixes his problems he’ll be a much better hitter than Brignac. Their offense+defense would then likely equal out.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
Hmm
I’d invite others to weigh in as this is beginning to feel kind of circular to me. My feeling is that if Alonso fixes his offensive problems then the most likely thing is the Reds keep him, move Votto to LF, and address SS and C through another mechanism.
And if he doesn’t make the necessary adjustments, then he really doesn’t have a whole lot of trade value.
To some degree, this depends on the timing. If it’s a right now trade, his value is diminished by those challenges. If it’s a trade down the road, a lot depends on the progress he makes or doesn’t make this season.
I have to point out, though, in your scenario you’re giving Alonso a chance to improve his offense but not Brignac (who has shown both plus offense and plus defense in the past, but at different times – he still could put it all together).
Anyway, if they both reach their ceiling, Brignac is an above-average offensive shortstop with average to above-average defense at a premium position. In this scenario, Alonso becomes an above-average offensive first baseman – and regardless of his defense, the above average SS who offers both offense and defense is going to be more valuable.
I really have nothing against Alonso, by the way, it’s just that the offensive demands for 1B are so great that it means he just about has to reach his ceiling to have value. At which point I would guess the Reds keep him.
Alonso
Don’t forget that (a) he was hurt last year and (b) his pattern at each level so far has been to start slowly, then adjust as he gets familiar with the pitchers. There’s nothing to dislike about his approach at the plate, and I think his so-called “issues” with LHP are overblown.
Mike Emeigh http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/minor_key/
I see your point
But I think we’re arguing different scenarios.
If the trade happened right now (which is my arguement, not if/when Alonso and Brignac fix their problems), the teams would be swapping B level prospects with different problems:
- Brignac – Looked like a world-beater until his second stint in AA, then hit OK, and hit less OK in MLB.
- Alonso – Hasn’t hit as well as many expected, partly because of injury, partly because of problems agains lefties.
With the exception of Rookie League ball and with the “sample size” caveat, Alonso even with the hole in his swing has hit better than Brignac did through in the minors (I also know that Alonso was older than Brignac); and again, for whatever reason, Brignac hasn’t been able to translate that early career success into production at the highest levels.
Brignac is starting to look like a guy who could start for a team desparate for a SS (which, granted, the Reds are) but would be better as a backup. Alonso has had only one season (and he was hurt part of the time) to prove anything, and while he may only be as good as he is today he has more potential to be as good as you hope a first-rounder to be.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
This is so wrong.
Brignac only needs to be 20 runs worse offensively than Alonso (assuming they both play average defense) to equal him in value.
Assuming Brignac plays +5 defense (which I believe is a fair assumption):
5 defensive runs
20 replacement runs
12.5 positional runs
x offensive runs
5+20+12.5=37.5
If x=0 then Brignac is a 3.75 win player. X would have to be <17.5 for him to be below average.
IF
Brignac learns to hit major league pitchers, which because of his time playing professional ball seems less likely than Alonso (with less than one full year of professional ball) learning to hit lefties.
"You never know how you look through other people's eyes"
Huh?
At AA as a 20 YO Brignac was a better hitter in the same sample as Alonso was as a 21 YO. At A+, he was WAY better than Alonso.
Bad comparisons
In high A one guy played in the FSL and the other in the California League. Comparing lines from those two leagues is like playing in Petco and Coor’s in the mid 90’s.
As for Alonso in AA this year, dude had a wrist injury while there. Add in an already small sample size now being split up again? Tough to really come with much conclusion at all in there.
Agreed
My point was merely to illustrate that Brignac has had just as much success as Alonso in pro ball. this was his comment:
Brignac learns to hit major league pitchers, which because of his time playing professional ball seems less likely than Alonso (with less than one full year of professional ball) learning to hit lefties.
I thought that seemed to be a bit offbase.
+5 runs
Can anybody explain to me what formula they use to find out how many defensive runs a guy is worth? Is it purely mathematical or is observation used as well?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 15, 2010 5:07 PM EST up reply actions
Question
How do they account for variables such as:
1. Was a shift on?
2. How hard was the ball hit?
3. Lighting conditions (i.e. Metrodome for OFs)
4. A fast baserunner vs a slow baserunner
I know that defensives prowess is the new trend in stats, but I am unsure how these numbers are derived. If someone could explain the formula it would be appreciated.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 15, 2010 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
The link wouldn't work...
Do you have another link? Also, if the link is about UZR, is that the same as when they say a guy is +5 or something on defense value? I am trying to learn more about defensive metrics and their reliability so if anyone has an unbiased opinion/link I would appreciate it.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 15, 2010 10:38 PM EST up reply actions
Defense
Does one team truly use the shift more than others? Doubtful. So toss that out the window because everyone shifts on Dunn and Ortiz.
Is one team truly allowing harder hit balls than another? No, probably not. The playing field is pretty darn even at the major league level. Over the course of 500 balls in play its going to even itself out (500 BIP to one position).
Lighting conditions…. it hasn’t seemed to be much of an issue for teams playing in domes versus teams not playing in domes, so I don’t think its an issue. Plus, most teams play at night with the lights on.
As for fast/slow runners, see point #2. No team is facing opposing guys that other teams aren’t over the course of an entire season. Its going to even itself out.
Uneven schedule
I would agree if baseball played a balanced schedule. However certain divisions will have guys that hit the ball harder, and other divisions have guys with more speedsters. Does it take into account parks which traditional play bad defensively (i.e. Metrodome) for certain players? I am glad that they are making ground on defensive metrics but it seems that there is still a lot of work to be done.
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 16, 2010 1:46 AM EST up reply actions
What division
has guys that hit the ball harder than guys in other divisions? Which division has a lot more speedsters than other divisions?
No question
that some teams use larger and more frequent shifts. The fields are also quite different. Species and length make a big difference in how infields play.
Data on that?
Got some data on where that statement comes from? I just don’t believe some teams shift a lot more than others.
The fielders
Just like everyone else. Every now and again a coach from the bench will try to bring someone in or move them out.
My bad...
Did I learn nothing from Dr. Mindbender?
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
-Jonathan Swift
by King Billy Royal on Jan 16, 2010 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Your quest
will always come back to someone telling you to go read something at fangraphs or “the book.”
Not always
There is plenty of other places to learn about advanced defensive metrics. My question for you would be, what is the major problem with defensive metrics?
Rather keep Alonso, go with Cozart
Than trade Alonso for Brignac. Alonso+Cozart is a lot more valuable than no Alonso, Brignac and Cozart.
The average first baseman needs to be an .850 OPS bat. I think Alonso can do that within 5 months from now at the major league level. People get worked up about his splits. But have they really looked past his average? For starters, we are talking about 86 plate appearances. Then of course there is the fact that he has 13 walks and 15 strikeouts in those 86 plate appearances, both strong rates. Top it off with a 22.8% line drive rate against them so far in his career and well, I just don’t see a cause for concern. He clearly see’s the ball well off of them as noted with the K/BB rates. He doesn’t seem to struggle to hit line drives off of them as noted with his line drive rate. The problem so far has been a .255 BABIP against them as a pro (which doesn’t jive at all with his LD rates). He will be just fine.
Doesn't have to be Alonso for another player straightup
When I said that I think the Reds will trade Alonso, I didn’t mean to imply that they would trade him straightup for another player.
I don’t think they’ll trade him until July 31, at the earliest. As long as he stays healthy, I think he’ll improve his trade value.
I half concede the point
I don’t think we definitively know that yet, but if the Reds felt that was the case in their evaluation, so be it. I shouldn’t have belabored the Beckham thing – my real point was that dealing Alonso is not going to solve the SS or C issue. Although rglass44 had an interesting idea that could work if the Reds believe in Bartlett and are willing to add salary.
John
Is it possible to tag all the top 20 posts, the quick hits (I forget what they’re called), etc.? That way it’s easier to go back and find the whole series of posts. That would be great.
agreed
if that’s not already linked somewhere, it’d be really helpful
by oakballnack on Jan 15, 2010 11:12 AM EST up reply actions
yeah
Yeah i’ll do something like this next week after the book is done.
by John Sickels on Jan 15, 2010 11:53 AM EST up reply actions
Great thanks.
I missed a few because of the hollidays and busy work schedule, and it’ll make it much easier to go back and look at them and the discussions.
search function
If you use the “search” function up in the corner for the teams you missed, you’ll be able to find them.
by John Sickels on Jan 15, 2010 2:34 PM EST up reply actions
chapman
Chapman is 21, not 16. We’ve seen him against good competition, not just workouts and pick up games like most of the IFAS.
Grade A- IS an aggressive grade. But it’s an apples/oranges thing comparing Chapman to someone like Ynoa.
It isn’t just Ynoa, it’s international players in general. As I said above, A/A- grades should be for players who have relatively low risk (few red flags, fairly close to MLB, relatively high floors, etc). I just don’t think we know as much about this guy as people are letting on. He sounds to me like a thrower who will struggle with command and only possesses 1 plus pitch, 1 average pitch, and then what?
BA
Interesting how similar this looks to the BA list. I assume that Chapman would slot in at #1 if BA did their list now. That would mean the top 6 are the same in the same order. The only real discrepancy, which is significant, is Yorman Rodriguez.
I guess there is a pretty good consensus on the reds system
Logan Ondrusek
deserves more than a C. Yes, the Reds are pushing him, and yes, he was lit up in the AFL, but he had shutdown stuff at AA and IMO he’s going to be a top closer. Definitely top 15 in my book, maybe even top 10.
Mike Emeigh http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/minor_key/
Like Ondrusek
But a C seems about right, maybe a C+. He throws either his Cutter or his Fastball about 85% of the time. While they are good pitches, its tough to fall in love with someone so reliant on ‘speed’ stuff. With the lack of strikeouts, I doubt he gets a chance to be a closer without injuries happening ahead of him.
Only point here
is that there aren’t 20 players in this organization that should be above him. Strikeouts are important but sometimes people put too much weight on the Ks and not enough weight on the overall pitch quality.
Mike Emeigh http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/minor_key/
Kyle Lotzkar
What happened to him? I would have thought that he would have made the Top 20 list, or at least an honorable mention.
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.
