Community Prospect #31
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:31 PM EST
Email
PrintWith 25.5% of the vote, Yonder Alonso is elected Community Prospect #30.
1. Jason Heyward - 51%
2. Stephen Strasburg - 76%
3. Buster Posey - 20% (43% runoff)
4. Michael Stanton - 20% (54% runoff)
5. Jesus Montero - 20% (45% runoff)
6. Brian Matusz - 21%
7. Pedro Alvarez - 23%
8. Desmond Jennings - 29%
9. Carlos Santana -37% (50% runoff)
10. Neftali Feliz -37% (50% runoff)
11. Justin Smoak - 46%
12. Domonic Brown - 23% (59% runoff)
13. Madison Bumgarner - 30%
14. Martin Perez - 28%
15. Dustin Ackley - 31%
16. Chris Carter - 33.6%
17. Jeremy Hellickson - 29.4%
18. Michael Taylor - 36.9%
19. Alcides Escobar - 37.0%
20. Christian Friedrich - 29.0%(53.2% runoff)
21. Logan Morrison - 45.6%
22. Ryan Westmoreland - 24.7%
23. Aroldis Chapman - 32.0%
24. Wade Davis - 40.8%
25. Fernando Martinez - 30.5%
26. Aaron Hicks - 33.3%
27. Kyle Drabek - 34.0%
28. Lonnie Chisenhall - 24.5%
29. Jenrry Mejia - 18.8%(51.6% runoff)
Players will get 1 round on the poll as a tester, if they fail to draw 5% they will then be removed and sit out up to 3 rounds.
Players off the poll(will sit out up to 3 rounds): Jordan Lyles(#30-3.9%), Dee Gordon(#30-2.0%), Jake Arrieta(#30-2.0%), Casey Crosby(#30-2.9%), Michael Saunders(#28-2.1%), Jason Castro(#25-1.0%),
Tester pool: Hector Rondon, Ryan Kalish, Michael Montgomery, Matt Dominguez, Todd Frazier, Josh Reddick, Brett Lawrie, Zach Stewart, Simon Castro, Grant Green, Ike Davis, Zach Britton, Donovan Tate
The candidates with previous round vote %:
Freddie Freeman 6.9%
Starlin Castro 6.9%
Jacob Turner 15.7%
Dan Hudson 11.8%
Jhoulys Chacin 5.9%
Brett Wallace 7.8%
Over 130 AB/50 IP cutoff for eligibility
Please vote using the +1 system, not the rec system. Rec'd votes will not be counted in this poll, only actual posts with +1.
289 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Vote with a +1 here for Freddie Freeman
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:33 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
+1
How do I tell my kid brother about Desmond Jennings? (he loves the Rays)
"He's a cross between Carl Crawford and Justin Upton with B.J. Upton's upside"
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Jan 19, 2010 7:00 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results.
by biggentleben on Jan 20, 2010 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
Vote with a +1 here for Casey Kelly
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:33 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Starlin Castro
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:33 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Jacob Turner
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:33 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Tyler Matzek
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:33 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Derek Norris
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:34 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Dan Hudson
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:34 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Jhoulys Chacin
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:34 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Brett Wallace
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:34 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Josh Bell
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:34 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
Vote with a +1 here for Matt Moore
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:34 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
+1
"I was going to say, 'You’re gay for Elvis.' But then I realized that I, too, am gay for Elvis." ~Adam J. Morris.
by Kinslerhomer on Jan 19, 2010 7:29 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Vote with a +1 and name here for anyone not on the list
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:35 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
+1 Casey Crosby
Matt Moore is next on my list after Crosby, followed by Brett Wallace, Starlin Castro and Casey Kelly.
RIP Nick Adenhart
by gatling on Jan 19, 2010 5:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I like that list...
my personal next few is Moore, then Crosby, then Bell, then Castro.
+1 Casey Crosby
Deserves to hit the poll before Turner IMO.
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Casey Crosby Fanclub.
by David Tokarz on Jan 21, 2010 2:45 AM EST up reply actions
+1 Tyler Flowers
The (abundant) reports on his defensive improvement have me quite a bit higher on Flowers than I’ve been in the past. Bats like that at catcher don’t come around often.
by PissedMick on Jan 19, 2010 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
+1 Flowers
ok, I am going out on this limb with ya Mick.
DEE GORDON
"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 19, 2010 6:37 PM EST up reply actions
DEE BROWN
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
Tester change
I switched over to a one round, less than 5% and you are off format here. We’ll try this for awhile and see how it goes. We turned over 5 spots from the last poll, and I tried to go with names that have been voted for in the “other” category. We’ll see how those guys poll now that they’re on the list.
RIP Nick Adenhart
I think it is between Moore and Kelly for me
Anyone have a strong opinion comparing the two?
what John said
MM: Command problems preclude an A-, but the sky is the limit on Moore’s potential.
…whereas for Kelly: Possible number two/three starter.
Moore is lefty tho, with obviously electric stuff, so it is perfectly normal for him to take longer to harness his control… he has flashes of absolute dominance though… his June for example, a BB/PA of 8.6% and a K/PA of 40.0% , with a 57% GB . that is ridiculous for a teenager in full-season… [tho he did turn 20 halfway through the month ]
you can't cherry pick stats
he was bad in August too, his ERA ballooned and he was walking almost one every other inning (11bb’s in 23 IP’s). I’m not suggesting Moore’s not a solid prospect with a huge ceiling, but I don’t think he deserves to be on here over Kelly.
Callis said that there was an argument for Kelly to be ahead of Westmorleand as the Sox’s #1 prospect. Kelly was rated as having the best fastball, curve, change up and command for best in the system. He sits between 90-92, but there are also reports of 93-94.
His K numbers are good, not great, but his command was outstanding. He pitched all the way to High A in half a season at age 19! I think as he fills out, and now that he is moved off shortstop and concentrating solely on pitching that he can add some velocity.
what was i cherry picking?
i quoted John, who mentioned his command, I also mentioned it, and the fact that young lefties often take longer to harness control.
you’re the one who blatantly cherry picked a stat. walks. yes, i mentioned those….
I agree with Callis, and I rated Kelly above Westmoreland, that’s no knock on Moore, that’s saying Westy is overrated.
as for Kelly getting promoted, that’s organizational differences… Tampa really coddles young pitchers
also
last time I checked walks are a pretty important stat for starting pitchers and no you did not indicate in your stats that he had approximately 5bb/9IP over the course of his year. Instead you pointed to his performance in June, indicating a reduction in walks, but then failing to also point out that he again regressed in August.
I’m not trying to start a disagreement with you, I actually like Moore a lot.
and it was in support of my argument
which is that his upside is greater than Kelly’s.
i don’t see why you’re trying to shoot it down.
@MightyMoose
K and BB-rate stabilize much faster than other stats. They’re nowhere near as prone to random fluctuation as, say, ERA or WHIP. Moore sustained improved control over the second half of the season. The improvement was significant: he cut his BB rate nearly in half. You absolutely can cherry-pick stats, as long as you’re doing it in a meaningful way. Slicing the season in half and comparing the trends isn’t cherry picking, it’s looking at a player’s development. Cherrypicking would be throwing out every-other start through the entire season.
Particularly with young players, steps forward in-season are really common. Moore’s control improved. Whether that carries into this season remains to be seen, and it’s completely appropriate to flag control as a problem, but there’s absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that something seems to have clicked for him around mid-season.
I don't see
cutting his walk rate from 9/9 to 4.5/9 as overly encouraging. Yes he cut the rate, but the rate is still terrible.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:25 PM EST up reply actions
He cut his season rate
to 4.5 by posting a second-half rate of 3.8/9.
Again, you can look at splits for stats that tend to stablize quickly. ERA doesn’t stablize quickly. K-rate and BB-rate do.
As for the 9/9 rate, now who’s cherrypicking stats? He had a bad start to the season, and improved. That improvement was real. His second-half stats, his control was fine. Certainly not plus, but fine. For a guy with stuff as good as Moore’s, adequate control makes him an elite prospect.
August?
11 in 23.1 isn’t the same as 16 in 15 innings (April) or 17 in 19.2 innings. He also struck out 37 in those 23.1 innings and had a BAA of .198.
I won’t really consider him until Matzek, Crosby, Turner and Kelly are off of the board, but aside from April and May, Moore was pretty dominant.
+1
again, I’m not suggesting he’s not a really good prospect. I think that’s being lost. However, if walking a batter every other inning is seen as encouraging, I’m not ready to list him yet. I don’t think you should be given a pat on the back for walking a guy every inning, and reducing it to one every other inning, that’s all. At least not with some of the other names still left on the board.
Again...
It isn’t the 4.5 BB/9 that we consider encouraging, it’s that he sustained a rate under 4 for a half-season. That second-half BB-rate suggests a real improvement in skills. It’s not a bogus hand-picked sample of good starts, it’s a legitimate trend and uptick in performance.
again
i’m not suggesting he didn’t improve, they absolutely did. What I was saying is that he did do better a few months, then went back down again in Augst. He improved to only 4.5bb/9, that’s the point, it was still pretty bad.
You are right, if he can cut 4.5 to 2.2 next year, then he goes up the list for me. Until that time, he’s a kid with a big arm and big command problems, bottom line.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:24 PM EST up reply actions
for every Kershaw
there’s an even greater number that don’t harness the control.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:27 PM EST up reply actions
also
Kershaw was called up to the majors by age 20, so let’s not get too carried away with things.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:30 PM EST up reply actions
ARL
means very little for pitchers. It may affect the longevity of a guy’s career, but pitcher attrition is so great and the development curve is so wonky that 1-2 year differences in ARL shouldn’t make more than a 1-3 spot difference in a guy’s prospect value.
With his scouting profile and the same amount of mileage on his arm, Matt Moore would be a top 50-60 prospect if he’d been 25 years old in ’09. Good stuff is good stuff, no matter how old the arm that throws it is.
If anyone's wondering whether this is true...
stop. It is. Expecting pitcher development to mimic a hitters will lead you to a lot of disappointment. Bill James was telling it to people 30 years ago, and they’re still not listening.
Really?
There’s a huge number of lefthanders guys with 3 pitches that range from plus to plus-plus who bust after posting half-season bb-rates of 3.8/9?
I suppose that’s true insofar as all pitchers bust at a pretty high rate, but Moore’s profile is about as good as they come. I’d love to see a couple fewer walks, but we’re not talking about Mark Rogers here. If you want to persist in quoting his full-season line only, it paints a picture of a guy with slightly troubling control, and everything else makes him elite. If you slice it up and notice that he made adjustments and improved his control by leaps and bounds as the season wore on, it looks like a lot less of a red flag. That August bounceback you’re quoting is well within random fluctuation for a guy with a “true talent” control level in the mid-3’s. One called ball 4 goes differently and his rate drops from 4.13/9 to 3.75/9.
what are the three pitches
that are plus to plus plus?? I know the fastball and curve are plus. I hope you’re not referring to the change up he is trying to learn how to throw.
If you can find me the reliable source that says he currently throws three plus to plus plus I’d gladly concede.
It’s not me, I’m certainly no scout. I’m quoting guys like Goldstein that impressed with the pure stuff, but clearly point out that he does not have a clean delivery, in that it takes a lot of effrot and ,who questions his control and command calling it ‘shaky’. Also he said his broad frame borders on soft, which leads to questions about his long term conditioning.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:54 PM EST up reply actions
actually
he said sketchy not shaky. lol
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:57 PM EST up reply actions
Conditioning...
is a non-starter. Nobody can predict injuries, and THT research has actually shown that pitchers with a little extra weight have actually been more durable over the past few decades than their svelt counterparts.
On Moore’s changeup, from video I’ve seen I’m comfortable calling it a pitch that projects as plus. “trying to learn to throw” is a ridiculous characterization of a pitch that generates swings and misses right now. The best version of the pitch is unquestionably plus, and the issue is repeating it with regularity.
The fastball has plus velocity and plus-plus movement, and the curve is an absolute knee-buckler.
Moore’s command and control will remain a question until he sustains a lower rate over a full season. There’s no debate there. It doesn’t disqualify him as an elite prospect, though. First, because there’s indications that he’s already fixed the problem, and second, because even the 4.5 BB/9 full-season mark he posted is close enough to adequate that the rest of his package makes him one of the most exciting talents in the minors. Chris Tillman was considered a top-5 pitching prospect after posting a 4.3 BB/9 (without the encouraging 2nd-half split) just 2 years ago, and that placement was totally legitimate because of his upside.
What vids are you watching?
I can never seem to find any videos on him besides his draft vid on MLB.com
the question master
by thedudeofdudes on Jan 19, 2010 11:36 PM EST up reply actions
Milb.tv
He had one start televised last year. It’s archived if you want to pay the monthly fee.
Last year Yovani Gallardo posted a 4.5 BB/9.
He still had a pretty nice season. He still has plenty of room to improve going into his age 20 season, and I’ll take a guy that seems to be great at missing bats and getting grounds than filling the strike zone.
Also...
I’m not quite ready to vote for him yet, but Jiovanni Mier should be getting in line on the tester pool. He is better than quite a few of those players, and while many disagree with me that he is a better prospect than Dee Gordon and Grant Green, I don’t think many disagree that he is one of the top remaining SS. John gave him a “B borderline B+” and said he could be in the top 20 overall next season. That is a lot stronger of an endorsement than he gave to roughly half of the testers in waiting. I accept that Mier will probably get on this list after Grant Green (and maybe after Dee Gordon), but this is about the time he should at least be put in the pool.
well
castro is on the list already. i have him #2 overall. brignac and beckham can’t really be considered too close to mier at this point. they won’t get voted on first in my opinion.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
by "on the list"
i mean in the tester pool.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 6:02 PM EST up reply actions
'can't really be considered too close'?
why, because they’ve played in more than rookie/short-season leagues?
I know, Mier is better because he has played less, but ignoring that logic, what is your argument for Mier being so far ahead of them?
well not too close i mean
at least 25 spots behind. not saying one is great and the others are terrible. mier has looked much better than beckham so far. playing a little more at a worse level, doesn’t help his status in my opinion. people aren’t sure he’ll stay at SS but even if he does, he isn’t super likely to be above average defensively, and his bat is certainly questionable. brignac is a very different type prospect at this point, so i can see how opinion can vary from person to person. i think he is limited somewhat.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
If Brignac is more 25 spots behind Mier...
…then I think we have a problem. I know Brignac has been around a little while and so he might not excite people like a fresh faced draftee, but he has a chance to be a very, very good player.
oh well.
you are higher than me. higher than john. john has him as a B-. i think many others would agree.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 9:57 PM EST up reply actions
oh i think he should be a B as well.
but closer to the bottom end of the B’s. he’d be top 100 to me for sure.. beckham would be very very borderline for the top 100. mier should be around 50, the more i think about it.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 10:01 PM EST up reply actions
why does Escobar get a B+ then?
Briggy is plus with the glove as well, and he’s got power potential… I’ll give Escobar the nod, but its close
well
i think he is what dee gordon prays to become. he isn’t a great B+ guy to me, but he does qualify to me.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
this
his defense is overlooked despite the fact that all reports project him as a far above average defender in the short term at SS. combine that with some flashes of brilliance with the bat and I have him #6 among my shortstops and I will have him in my top 50-70. I’m also not as low on Beckham as others and he will probably be in the same range.
by Navi's_Navy on Jan 19, 2010 10:21 PM EST up reply actions
There's plus and there's plus.
Brignac’s a good SS as prospects go. Escobar’s a wizard. Likely a top-5 SS defensively in the majors, if scouts are to be believed. They’re not in the same league defensively.
The issue is that's what a 5 maybe 10 run difference over 150 games?
I think there bats play similar when you include Esco’s baserunning, so does that difference warrant a 50 spot difference in the top 100?
a 10 run difference is what, a little over a 1 WAR difference?
If you were talking about guys who project to be 6 WAR and 7 WAR players, then sure, that’s not a 50 spot difference. But a 1 WAR difference can be HUGE if you’re talking about a 3.5 WAR player versus a 2.5 WAR player.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
yeah
Brignac would be comfortably in my top 75…in the 55-65 range.
yeah i guess that isn't crazy or anything.
i only have him just outside the top 75-80. again, about 25 spots after mier. you have him closer to mier (or ahead of him), which is sort of reasonable. i just disagree.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 10:19 PM EST up reply actions
thanks
Yeah I guess it’s not crazy that I’m sort of reasonable enough to have him at 60 or so.
hmmm
odd wording. but i think that makes sense. i also think there is definitely not “a problem” if brignac ends up 25+ spots after mier. it is reasonable to have them close together. and it is reasonable to have brignac trailing by 25+ spots. brignac will get votes based on name recognition, so it could be closer than i would like.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 8:16 AM EST up reply actions
I'm aware
I know you don’t think there is a problem in Brignac being significantly below Mier. I think there is, and I think it’s more reasonable to put them fairly close to each other than not (Otherwise, I think one would probably be discounting either Brignac’s floor or Mier’s ceiling). I don’t think I’m an outlying opinion in this.
That said, I’m anxious to see what Mier does above rookie ball, as he could quickly zoom into the top 30 or so with a good performance.
John apparently agrees
with me. if you read to the comments in these thread, i think you’ll see many at least agree with me. obviously you think it is more reasonable to place them the way you want to place them. that is a pointless statement.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 6:41 PM EST up reply actions
I can see John's rankings
There isn’t anyone else touting Mier on this thread, only you. You brought him up and nobody else responded except Dave and I. So I’m not sure how that qualifies as support.
How is it pointless to say that a more reasoned argument could be made to have them near one another than one significantly ahead? It’s only pointless to you because you’re a huge Mier guy, more so than the rest of the community.
This is silly anyway: I may even have Mier slightly above Brignac in my rankings. I really like a SS with hands like his. My whole point is that to say Brignac should be “at least 25 spots behind”…well, that is the definition of a pointless statement. And one I think the community, among others, would vehemently disagree with.
i meant these threads
(said these thread)
Either way, you are incorrect. It is pointless to say “my position is more reasonable than yours.” Obviously you feel that way. Obviously everyone feels that way. I’m not really saying your position is totally unreasonable, just wrong. My position (that Brignac is solidly behind Mier) has been supported by many people in these threads, but that hasn’t even been a major issue of mine or anything. I am probably a little higher on Mier than most, but you seem to be higher on Brignac than the average person here to a greater degree.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
either way
Whether you meant this thread or these threads (community lists) I can see that the statement that “many at least agree with you” is not supported.
If I’m “wrong” because I don’t think Brignac is solidly/significantly behind Mier, then fine. The “many people” who support that in these threads can judge me accordingly. I should have realized prior that quibbling about this with you will only end in you making passive aggressive remarks, and will be wholly unproductive. I will take mrkupe’s advice and move on.
ugh
i haven’t made passive aggressive remarks. i’ve been straightforward the whole time. there are many people that have mentioned that they considered mier to be generally in the tier of gordon/green, although most of those people think mier is behind them, as i’ve said. not many people have said they thought brignac was in that tier, but rather that he is a little further back. there is nothing passive aggressive about stating that or about pointing out that when you say “my opinion is more reasonable than yours” it doesn’t help your argument.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 10:33 PM EST up reply actions
Brignac>Mier
seems pretty clear to me. I don’t get distracted easily by shiny new things though.
I love Hudson...
but I agree. If he kept the ball on the ground more last year, I’d be more bullish. The move to fly balls makes me want to see more data.
+1
Getting close, though.
Pretty much all of the other pitchers being considered right now have higher ceilings, some by a considerable margin.
B/B+ guy
John almost gave him a B, raised it to B+.
I agree with the B+, but not sure he cracks the top 50.
Really, he’s probably better as a pen arm.
Hasn’t shown he can sustain velocity deep into games.
Slider is an average pitch, but located well.
Change is nice, so is command/pitchabilty.
Just not quite a top 50 package.
by acerimusdux on Jan 20, 2010 12:31 PM EST up reply actions
yeah
i’m surprised he is tied for the lead right now. i guess a certain number of people here want to go very conservatively, which is fine. maybe we need some other conservative types to balance that part of the vote out.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 12:48 PM EST up reply actions
I like Chacin here
I maybe should be voting for Casey Kelly first.
But Chacin I think gets a bit under rated.
He doesn’t throw real hard, but that’s a plus sinker he’s throwing.
You don’t need super high K-rates with that high GB rate.
Chacin should be a solid SP.
Hudson might be as well.
People like him because he looked good in MLB.
But it’s a small sample, bullpen work, and 2 starts.
But if you look at independent reports,
from the 2 starts before his callup,
velocity inconsistent, breaking ball average.
Hudson came a long way quickly. He was in only his first full minor league season. And, he does still have projection. There’s a good chance he can get a bit stronger, better conditioned, and show the plus velocity more consistently. And his ability to locate that average slider may help it play up. He ends up looking like a very good SP as well, if things go right. I’m just more uncertain.
It doesnt surprise me
since many people here have shown time and time again they think that taking minor league numbers (untranslated and out of context) and ignoring scouting is the best way to analyze prospects.
Prospect from my favorite team puts up very good minor league numbers? He MUST be underrated Im voting for him until he’s on!
guilty as charged
(done in a Kelsey Grammar as Sideshow Bob voice).
OK, I’ve used that before.
Anyway, I am often guilty of that, for several reasons. But I do try to temper it somewhat and I tend to agree that I listen to what i hear from the scouts a little on Hudson.
I don't know about that...
as it applies to Hudson.
Goldstein ranked him number one in the system, saying he had “plus stuff and well above-average command”. KG is an upside fiend, especially with pitchers. I would think negative scouting reports on Hudson are left over from before his 2009 velocity spike, which has him sitting in the low-90s and touching the mids.
If it weren’t for the improvement in velocity, I’d be skeptical of Hudson anywhere but at the end of a top-100 list, even with his 2009 stats. The improvement in stuff gives me a reason to believe, but until I see some more data, I’m more comfortable with him 10 or 20 spots down from here. Still, there’s not a ton of difference between the #31 and #51 on a top prospect list, so if the people want it, I can’t say it’s unreasonable.
He still had him as a 4 star
Plus his “perfect world projection” was a #3 starter…
I like Hudson a lot, but can’t in good conscience take him above some of the guys left on the board. I agree its not a huge difference, though.
that seemed like rather poor writing to me.
obviously, by implication, some of those scouts who thought he hadn’t maxed out his potential, rate him as better than a #3. goldstein apparently doesn’t agree with that ‘upside’ and, i guess, it is goldstein’s perfect world and not another.
he looks like he is going to put up 200 innings fairly consistently (if he stays healthy
He could be pretty mediocre if he is durable and still be very valuable (Livan Hernandez floor?)
Since I threw Flowers out there up above...
I’m compelled to ask: Isn’t Tyler Flowers what Derek Norris hopes he can be by the time he (knock on wood) reaches the majors?
i think they are similar
both have very nice bats if they make it. both have defensive issues, but seem to be on a good track. both are the types of players that classically get moved off catcher even if they can handle it. i prefer norris, but the fact that his defense is looking sort of like flowers, i might lower him a bit too.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Norris has otherwordly power potential
I prefer him slightly, plus he hasnt been catching for too long, so there is the possibility he could pass flowers in D in the next couple of seasons
that is basically my feeling
even if catcher prospects go from horrid to serviceable like flowers has, they still seemingly tend to get moved somewhere else if they can hit. maybe there is a belief that learning the catcher position stunts offensive development? i don’t know. but it happens often, which is why there have been so very few good hitting catchers in major league history.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Norris is already a better contact hitter, and he has the potential to hit for a ton of power (moreso than Flowers even).
I really don't think that's true at all.
Flowers’ contact issues are well known, but Norris has his own problems in that area. In fact, albeit at a year younger than Flowers was at the level, Norris just struck out 26.5% of the time in the Sally, while Flowers had a 19% rate there in his 2007 season. While in the low minors, Flowers was a significantly better contact hitter than Norris has been.
This is a problem I have with some prospect discussions, where “wishing on a prospect” is often preferred to evaluation of what they can do. Flowers is a (at least nearly) major-league-ready prospect who has an almost identical offensive skillset to Norris (plus power, plus discipline, low contact rate, little speed) and has a significantly better chance to stay on the position. Scouting reports on Flowers’ defense have been glowing (“Scouts were universal in their praise for how much he improved defensively” -Goldstein) while Norris is a longshot to stay there.
Yes, you can argue that Norris’ ceiling is higher, because he’s still in his early 20s, and may make a leap. You can even say that he might improve his defense because he’s not very experienced at the position. Evaluating him as if he WILL do both of those things, however, is a mistake. It’s more likely than not that Norris will never be as good a player as Tyler Flowers, and that’s the important thing to focus on here.
how much he improved...
from horrible to serviceable right? doesn’t mean he is going to stick at catcher. i haven’t heard that he is likely to be a good defensive or even near average defensive catcher. again, when good hitters are below average defensively at catcher, they usually get moved off the position. they don’t have to be, but they usually are.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 9:50 PM EST up reply actions
His value is determined by what he CAN do, not what a team chooses to do with him.
KG can see Flowers being an average defensive catcher with a very good bat. That’s worth quite a bit to a baseball team.
yeah
if he is average defensively i agree. but it isn’t purely about what a prospect CAN do either. if prospects very similar to flowers hardly ever become catchers, then that should enter into his prospect value.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 19, 2010 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
Ok, since you went down this path
Let’s do a little comparison:
Flowers in 2007 was in the Sally League at age 21. In 389 ABs, he produced a .298/.378/.488 line. He put up a .190 ISO, a 74:49 K:BB ratio, a 19.0% K rate and a 11.2% BB rate.
Norris in 2009 was in the Sally League at age 20. In 437 ABs, he produced a .286/.413/.513 line. He put up a .227 ISO, a 116:90 K:BB ratio, a 26.5% K rate and a 17.1% BB rate.
So true, Flowers did make more contact at a comparable level. But despite being a full year younger at the same level, Norris produced more power and put up a stellar BB rate.
The reason why I say Norris is the better contact hitter is mainly due to Flowers’ long loopy swing.
Yeah, Norris had at least as good a year with the bat...
if not slightly better. It depends on how you view contact rates for low-minors prospects.
The point isn’t who had the better year in A-ball, it’s that one is in A-ball, and one is ready for the majors, and they’re very hard to differentiate in tools or skills (at least for their levels—Flowers skills are obviously more developed). The point Flowers is at right now is one that the Nats can only hope Norris will someday reach. And that’s just with the bat. No one’s talking much about Norris’ chances to be an average defensive major league catcher.
Norris has more upside, I get it. He has more because he’s 21 next year, and no one knows how he’ll develop. He could start making more contact, he could put up .250 IsoPs and .120 IsoDs for the next two years. He could also stagnate, as MANY offensively talented catchers do, or move off of the position, or get injured and lose ability, or just plain bomb. It’s hard to say.
What’s clear though is that Norris’ REASONABLE upside is only slightly better with the bat than Flowers’. His defensive upside probably peaks at what Flowers is doing right now. The risk that he’ll reach those points matters so much more than the small possibility that he’ll be better than what Flowers is now as a nearly finished product. Prospecting isn’t all about speculation, it’s about knowing how to evaluate risk and how to value a sure thing. In this case, looking at the two players from that perspective leads you to a pretty clear answer.
oh no
i think norris’s defensive peak is much higher than flowers. flowers right now projects to be serviceable maybe, certainly a big improvement. his upside is an average defensive catcher like KG says. but realistically he’ll be below average, and probably moved off as most similar catchers to him are. norris will probably be moved off as well, but could prove to be a significantly better defensive catcher.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 11:58 AM EST up reply actions
And Norris projects to be a first baseman.
At some point, you have to ask yourself how valuable “he COULD be better” is.
well
i agree with your general sentiment. however, i think in this case, you have to ask how likely flowers is to be moved off the position. that is not a team dynamic question either, it is a pure prospect evaluation question. if catchers that hit as well as flowers does, but play below average defense almost always get moved off, then we can assume flowers will too. it doesn’t only matter that flowers potentially COULD be a reasonable catcher. maybe pujols could be a reasonable catcher. doesn’t make him more valuable.
in both cases the ODDS need to be taken into account. if players like flowers/norris don’t become catchers unless they become above average catchers defensively (IF), then we need to ask which one has a better chance of that? it very well could be norris. flowers has a better chance to be a serviceable below average defensive catcher maybe, but if the odds are low that he’ll actually get to catch being a serviceable below average defensive catcher, then that needs to be factored in as well.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
I don't agree with your repeated assertion...
that catchers who can hit but aren’t plus fielders get moved off of the position. You might want to check the math on this, but I’m pretty sure that nearly 50% of the catchers in the league are “below average” defensively. I think it’s more likely you feel like that’s true because catchers that hit typically don’t get knocked for their defense (unless they’re TERRIBLE) and catchers who can’t hit have their defensive abilities talked up endlessly.
When I look at what you’re saying from a logical perspective, it just doesn’t hold water. Guys like Brian McCann, Jorge Posada, Bengie Molina, A.J. Pierzynski, and God—countless others—have seemed to do pretty well while being below-average behind the plate.
you mean the very organization tyler flowers is in has tolerated for years one of the worst defensive catchers in baseball?
flowers isn’t moving off catcher.
well
i am saying i see mediocre-bad defensive catchers moved off the position often if they can hit. mediocre-bad hitting catchers don’t get moved off the position. if flowers proves to be as good defensively as molina or mccann, then he has a decent chance of sticking i guess. he hasn’t proved that yet. taking a nice step forward defensively helps his prospect status. i just don’t think he is a top 50 guy because i don’t feel highly confident he’ll stay a catcher long if at all.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 2:48 PM EST up reply actions
Well, he's going to.
The Sox are committed to it, and the scouts are confident now that he can. Maybe you should reevaluate.
Flowers/norris
Scoutingthesally has Norris ranked 3rd in the sally at catcher, behind Sanchez and D’Arnaud, due to the fielding isue and whether he will stick. I think Flowers will stick, at least early in his career, and should replace AJ Pierz*()&*%&^$%^# for the Chisox next year (I think).
I trust scoutingthesally, but the comment he made in that ranking, that his defense is ‘apparently" shoddy, suggests he himself didn’t see Norris.
FWIW, projectprospect ranked Flowers 4th among catchers, with Norris 5. Will Myers, if I had more than rookie ball to go on, would be above them, but I have a hard time without more pro data.
John gave Norris B+ and Flowers B, and I respect his opinion a lot. He thinks he should be able to stay. I guess this isn’t like Jesus Montero we’re talking here. But John also talks about Flowers improvement behind the dish.
To me, Flowers is evidently now serviceable behind the plate, major league ready. We just don’t know with Norris, so I give Flowers the nod.
Napoli/Tettleton
John made the napoli/Tettleton comp for Norris. I liked that for Flowers although Flowers has less power than Naps. Another, interesting comp for both might be Mike Stanley. Or, god forbid, Josh Phelps (in that he never could play c-and he didn’t quite have the minor league walk rate these guys do, except maybe one sseason, I think).
Flowers
Like him a lot. He seems to have improved his fielding so there may be less of a question there than with Norris. His k rate is a little worrisome, but as he gets acclimated to the higher levels he should improve that somewhat. I think Flowers at c is better than Norris at 1B, but Norris may have a little better bat and we don’t know Flowers will stick for sure. But good comparison.
Is napolui and ok comp, albeit he has more power than Flowers I’d think. Hopefully no one like Mathis keeps Flowers a semi-regular.
I like the Napoli comp a lot.
If Napoli was a little better behind the plate, and had a better arm (like Flowers) then maybe Scioscia wouldn’t have the irrational hatred for Naps that he does. I don’t see Flowers having that kind of power (there are very few players in baseball with as much pop as Napoli), but for overall player value I think they’ll be very close.
Keep in mind that Napoli was somewhere around the 5th to 7th most valuable catcher last year, despite playing only 2/3 of the season. I’ve seen valuations that have Napoli as the most valuable Angels’ player. And Flowers will likely spend more time behind the plate.
but that doesn't factor in what is sure to be a below average defender at C
I wouldn’t be surprised if he was -10 or worse at C.
by Navi's_Navy on Jan 19, 2010 10:22 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, it doesn't
I’m not comfortable with any statistical analysis of catcher defense. I’ve seen attempts at advance stats that have Napoli as average defensively, and in many, probably worthless, measurable ways (CS%, PB, WP, blah blah) Napoli was just as good as Mathis behind the plate. Napoli’s got a sloppy physique, and our eyes tell us he’s probably not a good defender—and that’s the side I’m on if I’m forced to pick. However, I know that our eyes are often bad at judging who the good defenders are in baseball, so who knows.
Flowers though, he projects to be only slightly below Napoli with the bat, and a possible average defensive catcher. Nobody ever made that projection for Naps when he was a prospect.
Clayton Kershaw at age 19 in low-A
12.1 BB/PA%, 32.4 K/PA% in 97.1 IP. [ 5 hr allowed, 2.85 fip]
MMoore at age 19/20 in low-A: 13.4 BB/PA %, 33.7 K/PA % in 123 IP [6 hr allowed, 3.11 fip]
let’s compare apples-to-apples.
Matt Moore is not very comparable to Casey Kelly, the two options being most argued about for this slot…. Matt Moore does compare pretty favorably to one Mr Kershaw however
He also compares favorably to lots of other lefties with big sliders and no control who dominated in A Ball
Most them work at Kinko’s.
I like Moore a bit more than many of them, but he’s far from Kershaw and he’s far from a sure thing.
Personally, Im voting Turner, Matzek and Kelly before him, probably in that order (voted Turner this time)>
haha
the above re: kinkos made me laugh.
At least hopefully they got a good signing bonus, before starting there.
Let's go over the argument for Moore again...
-Ceiling matters, BUT only if you have at least performed in A ball (See ya Turner and Matzek!)
-Numbers matter, BUT only up to A Ball (No one cares how you did in AA, Kelly!)
-Numbers matter, BUT just strikeouts – NOT control (Kelly again)
-ARL matters, BUT not for AA (Kelly is actually younger than Moore)
-Comps matter, BUT only good ones (Kershaw! Blammo!)
Im mostly joking here
I really like Moore. I just dont agree with the argument for him over some of the guys on the poll.
My argument for Moore:
Lefthanders who can strike out 12/9 and throw mid-90s gas with secondary stuff to support it are really rare. Control is a concern, but his numbers were fine in ‘08 and totally fine again in the second half of ’09. Recent history has his control as passable (if not necessarily a strength) for longer than it’s been a problem.
Strikeouts aren’t the be-all, end-all of success, but a guy with a K/9 of 7 below A is a red flag for me. Kelly’s ERA is sparkly, but I want to see him repeat his good results in the high minors. If I’m projecting someone as a major league impact arm, I like to see him approach 1 k/inning. Most of the guys who front quality major league rotations were able to miss bats in the minors. John Lackey and Mark Buehrle stand out as counter-examples, but dominating minor league hitters and getting them out without relying on your defense is the best indicator of future success for me (as long as it’s combined with a repertoire that profiles well at higher levels).
Kelly’s on the John Lackey track – he’s got the power arm but not the K results you’d expect given his arsenal. That worries me a bit. Not a lot, but enough to prefer Moore, even though I know Moore has red flags of his own.
rick porcello
was below 6 in A+. Not a comp and he was minus one pitch, but still.
not according to alskor
“Lefthanders who can strike out 12/9 and throw mid-90s gas with secondary stuff to support it are really rare” …
… according to him, guys like this work at Kinko’s
mid 90's?
Goldstein says Moore sits at 91-93, Kelly is pretty much the same with better secondary stuff (3 quality pitches versus two) and better command.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:34 PM EST up reply actions
Sits at...
and touches mid-90s. Kelly’s also righthanded. 91-93, touching 94 is much more impressive and rare for a lefty than a righty. Moore also has 3 pitches. His changeup isn’t as advanced as Kelly’s, but it’s not a show-me offering. Moore’s curve is lightyears ahead of Kelly’s breaking pitch, too.
Moore’s curve is lightyears ahead of Kelly’s breaking pitch, too.
[Kelly’s] curveball is a clear plus offering
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9762
He needed just nine pitches to retire three pretty damn good Double-A hitters, throwing nothing but hi 92-94 mph sinker before using his plus curveball when he got ahead of Nick Weglarz
http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9222
his hard, 12-6 curve ball is a true plus pitch
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/a-look-at-red-sox-prospect-casey-kelly/
Curveball: Rivaled Andrew Brackman as the best breaking pitch I’ve seen this year. It was solid average throughout the game and flashed plus to the point of being a true wipe out offering. He was comfortable throwing the pitch any count and it was consistently in the 76-78 MPH range. His arm action on the pitch was also excellent, as it was very difficult for the Gnats hitters to read the pitch coming out of his hand. The swings against his curve ball were ugly; a handful of hitters simply refused to offer at it.
http://projectprospect.com/article/2009/06/04/casey-kelly-scouting-report
Curveball has the potential to become a plus-plus wipeout pitch. It sits around 76-78 mph
http://soxprospects.com/players/kelly-casey.htm
Kelly has a knack for adding and subtracting from his fastball and excellent curveball, sometimes toying with hitters. His athletic ability and innate pitchability evoke some comparisons to Zack Greinke, though his arm isn’t quite in Greinke’s class.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=7425
A lot of scouts like Kelly, the son of former big leaguer Pat Kelly, because he has a low-to-mid 90s fastball and one of the best hammer curves in the draft.
wow, I like Kelly even more
great stuff Alskor.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 11:31 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks for all the toughful input with backing
No offense, but at first it seemed a bit like homerism, but while I initially voted without even giving Kelly a second thought up this high, you’ve convinced me that this is probably the right range for him.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
I was under the impression its low 90's as well
but Im just going to let this one go, Ive made my points before… and now Ive made a stupid mistake trying to make a joke, so… cutting my losses here…
Like I said, though, I really like Moore. This isnt about Moore not being a good prospect.
+1
i’m not trying to disrespect Moore, I just think there’s better options right now.
I’d actually like to see Montgomery on the testers soon.
by MightyMoose on Jan 19, 2010 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
+1 on Montgomery
He seems to be a tad underrated here. His floor might be the highest of all pitchers in the minors, and yet he still has #2 potential.
no
He made a boo boo.
Follow me at http://twitter.com/JDSussman
Remember: baseball guys... baseball...
Hey, at least it's A+!
I know I’m vocal about my distaste for both Kelly or Moore being up this high on the list, but Kelly’s the clear choice of the two for me.
I think the argument for Moore
is that 13 strikeouts per game covers a multitude of sins.
by AndrewTorrez on Jan 20, 2010 1:16 PM EST up reply actions
also
walk rate for young minor league pitchers is one of the least correlated factors to major league success.
by auclairkeithbc on Jan 20, 2010 1:29 PM EST up reply actions
Interesting
Maybe, it’s just because I think they’re all very close to one another, but it seems like all of the high upside/low minors starters are splitting the vote in this poll.
Turner: 4
Matzek: 4
Crosby: 2
Kelly: 4
Moore: 8
The more I think of it, the harder this decision becomes
I’ve been voting for Wallace pretty consistently the last few polls, but I’m starting to lean towards Norris.
Actually, changing my vote to hit up Norris.
"I generally avoid temptation unless I can't resist it" ~ Mae West
damn
I want to vote Starlin here, but I don’t think I can.
From the pitching side, I really want to see something out of Matzek and Turner before jumping in on it. Granted, we are at 31, so a pure tools slotting would be fine. That said, I’ll take what I know on Matt Moore and Casey Kelly before I go with them for now. I’d place Moore ahead of Kelly. I buy Kelly is good, and that he will get better, but Moore’s upside seems to be a tad underrated. I like Chacin and Hudson, but I don’t think their upsides justify it here. At best, probably another 8-9 slots for me, depending on each board that pops up. From the corner IF group, I’ll take Josh Bell over Brett Wallace and Freddie Freeman. Bell’s potential to stick at 3rd weighs heavily there for me. I’m not sure Wallace’s bat would overcome that small difference for me, and I think I prefer Bell’s bat to Freeman’s.
That leaves me Moore, Bell, Castro, Norris. I think Norris’ chances of sticking at catcher is better than most are giving him credit for. The athleticism, the work ethic, the focus on defense – doesn’t mean that he’ll succeed, but it’s positive enough for me. Moore/Castro/Norris? Two guys with the potential to play premium positions, so I’ll knock Moore out for now. If he was further along, it might’ve been different. Damn, I want to vote for Castro, but I think my nod will go with Norris here. PissedMick makes some valid points above on Norris being a bit of a SNTS guy when discussed relative to Flowers, but I think Norris’ potential to stick at catcher is higher, and his power potential is better.
Montgomery
I think he should be getting a tester here. Maybe this is somewhat of a bias. I’d be interested to hear what ppl think about him.
+1
dang, i completely forgot. Definitely agree – Montgomery should be tested.
Lotta pitchers
splitting up the vote, although Hudson is ahead and Moore not too far back. Hudson had a great year but I think some younger guys have the upside. Something to be said for a guy that has performed at a high level. I’d have thought 40s over 31.
Hudson
This is about 20 spots higher than I have Hudson on my personal list. It’s possible I’m being a little over cautious, but he blew thru 5 levels last year without really being around long enough anywhere for him to be seen by an opponent more than once. The numbers are great, but I just wonder how they’d look if he had stayed in AA once he reached there, or something like that. I’d like to see how he’d react to hitters adjusting to him after having seen him/having scouting reports on him. It would be easier to make those adjustments the first time facing minor leaguers instead of doing so in the bigs this coming season.
RIP Nick Adenhart
+1
I could see if there were glowing scouting reports to back up his season, but that isn’t the case. KG’s perfect world projection:
Even with Hudson’s tremendous growth in 2009, some scouts don’t see room for much more, seeing him as a good third starter at best. Others think he’d be even better as a late-inning reliever.
BA has him behind both Mitchell and Flowers.
seems like he was around long enough for him to be seen by an opponent more than once.
http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=7146&position=P&season=
while there may be something to your point, pitchers also get penalized for getting lit up when promoted to a new level. seems odd to penalize them for beating up those levels. also, i imagine organizations have scouting reports that they share between their affiliates. it’s not like braves scouts hide what they learn at myrtle beach from mississippi. not to mention that players – or at least the ones who are any good – tend to get promoted at some point during the season. an AA team in april looks a lot different than in august.
Sure
He did face a team more than once a couple of times, one team even three times I think. But he didn’t spend more than 6 weeks any in one league. It’s just harder to gauge a guy that spends such short bursts at different levels. It would be easier in my book to rate Hudson if he had just finished out the year in AA than having 5 extremely small samples to look at across A ball to the bigs.
That said, I still like Hudson and think he’ll be able to have success in the majors, but I’m not sure what kind of role he fits best in. He’s a top 60 guy at this point for me, can’t go much higher than that.
RIP Nick Adenhart
you mean.
it’s harder to gauge a guy that spends short bursts at many different levels who was not highly touted prior to the season.
i think it’s appropriate to be cautious. i saw him pitch numerous times, though, across most of those levels so i don’t have as much of an issue. he’s legit.
Maybe?
I think even with a highly regarded player, if they move thru 5 levels of competition in one season, it’s hard to gauge exactly what kind of strides or improvements a guy has actually made and how much of it is from being “new”. I’d like to think that I’d be rational enough to keep the same thought process for both a highly touted player and a more obscure one, but I guess I can’t say that with absolute certainty either. Bias does creep in sometimes without you knowing it, but I don’t think that’s what I am doing here to be honest.
RIP Nick Adenhart
Guys with that profile have seemed to have been overrated, in retrospect
Jeff Francis and Joe Kennedy jump to mind. Both are just fine, but but neither has quite lived up to expectations. Heck, you can probably lump any Naimoli-era Devil Rays pitching prospect into that category.
Bad Left Hook - The SB Nation boxing blog
"Baseball is played on the field, not on a calculator."
not sure it's bias.
it’s lack of information. or, at a minimum, conflicting information. a year ago, this guy was a recent 6th round pick that no one was talking about. now, he’s breezed through four full season affiliates and played in the majors. one is not like the other.
there would certainly be some questions still either way. but, for, say, a first round pick from college, it wouldn’t be nearly as odd to have done that. matt garza comes to mind for a similar jump in levels.
Moore is getting closer
18 to 15 now, and although not much voting yet this morning Moore got a couple with the last one around 9:45 a.m.
Runoff poll posted
Didn’t see any point going for another 2 hours here with Moore and Hudson one vote apart and trading them back and forth the last hour or two.
RIP Nick Adenhart
Tanner Scheppers for tester pool
He’s got more upside and raw ability than a number of the guys we are talking about at the moment, the only question is how much to downgrade hjm for the injury risk.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
