Debate Amongst Friends
Maybe you guys can help me and buddy. We have been argueing the better combo based on which combo will have the best careers. Dustin Ackley & Jaff Decker or Michael Taylor & Reese Havens?
I won't get into why we are argueing this because it is a pretty goofy reason. We would just like you all to let us know what u think, and maybe help us settle the debate. I like the Ackley/Decker combination myself.
23 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
ackley and decker
Even if Ackley goes back to the outfield, I like him better than Taylor. And among the two limited-ceiling guys, I’d guess Decker’s bat > Havens’ bat and glove.
Ackley and Decker
Reese Havens is by far the worst prospect of the four.
I think Ackley is better than Taylor, but that’s up for debate. Not a fan of Decker, but he’s still twice the prospect Havens is.
Not really close. Ackley & Decker.
Bullpen Banter
www.bullpenbanter.com
twitter: @alskor
There might be an echo in here...
…but I’ll go with Ackley and Decker too.
And I say that as a huge Havens fan. I think I like Taylor a touch more than Ackley, but I don’t see many scenarios in which Havens is a more productive MLB player than Decker.
Yeah I gotta agree
Both that I’m a huge Havens fan and think he’s underrated, but also that this debate really doesn’t seem that close. Ackley vs. Taylor is a huge advantage to the first pair already, and its tough to make any kind of case that Havens makes that ground up.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Mar 13, 2010 4:56 PM EST up reply actions
Ackley and Decker
Ackley is the best prospect of the group and Havens is easily the worst. And I say that as a Mets fan.
+1
http://www.simdynasty.com/index.jsp?refer=mychiefs58
by huckleberry on Mar 14, 2010 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Ackley & Decker
not close
Ackley ~ Taylor. (I think Ackley is better, but it’s debateable)
Decker > Havens.
Adopted Giant: Mike Krukow.
Grab Some Pine, Meat
Kevin Frandsen: The best SS on the Giants roster
Hoping for BowkerMania to hit AT&T Park in 2010
well
It’s actually like this. Say you need a 2B and OF for the future. You can draft Ackley first to play 2B, but then you have to take Decker as your OF. Or, you can take Taylor first for your OF and then you have to take Havens for 2B.
So what about
Ackley and Havens vs Decker and Taylor? Would that make it more or less debatable?
by cookiedabookie on Mar 14, 2010 11:03 AM EDT reply actions
not really
cause in that scenario it appears that you would have a choice between each position, but you dont. You can have Ackley(2B) with Decker in the OF, OR you can have Taylor(OF) with Havens at 2B.
ackley>taylor,havens,decker combined.
ackley has superstar potentintial. in my opinion the other do not
I really think Havens has some sleeper superstar upside
But he’ll have plenty of bust and mid-range potential until he does something in the upper levels, too. I feel like the low batting average is being considered way too heavily in his case though. He’s a second baseman (long term anyway) who makes lots of contact (17.0 K%), draws plenty of walks (12.7 BB%), and hits for solid power (.175 ISO, 8.0% HR/BIA). The low batting average wasn’t because he’s swinging and missing, it was because he hit a few too many popups, a more correctable problem than a high K%. He was a bit old for the FSL, but it was the FSL, the lowest run environment in the minors, and he was one of the most productive hitters in the league while trying to play the most demanding defensive position besides catcher.
Part of this is that I feel like Havens is the exact kind of prospect who can take some time to develop, but might not hit his ceiling for quite some time. He’s not some stud athlete whose pure athleticism is suddenly going to take him to the next level. But his offensive game is above average across the board and there’s room for improvement. He even drew more walks than strikeouts vs LHP, a great sign that platoon splits might not be a huge problem. Plus he’s fundamentally sound, enough where he could be come an average or better defender at second despite below average athleticism. You look at the best second baseman in the game right now, even in recent history, and quite a few really didn’t make a significant major league impact until they were 25 or 26, especially ones with a similar type of profile. Chase Utley, Craig Biggio, and Jeff Kent all legit HOF candidates, none were absurdly athletic prospects, all known first for their bat and second their fundamental abilitiy. Biggio, probably the most likely right now to make the hall, didn’t have a wOBA over .350 until he was 27. At 26, Utley was yet to play a full season in the majors, and was coming off a .331 career high wOBA. Through age 29, Jeff Kent consistently had .330-.350 wOBAs, but didn’t become a monster until his age 30 season. Using potential HOFers may be a bit extreme for talking about anyone in HiA, but consider the following more contemporary and less productive semi-stars: Ian Kinsler, Robinson Cano, Ben Zobrist, Aaron Hill, Dan Uggla, Orlando Hudson, Brandon Phillips. None of these guys really became impact players until they got into the second half of their twenties, and the ones who played in the majors prior to that were mostly unproductive and sometimes downright terrible. Its the toolsier shortstops and outfielders and slugging first and third baseman are more often the guys who break in between 20-23. Of course, there are always Dustin Pedroia’s too, but the point is, when talking about second baseman with the type of skillset Havens has, the guys who do eventually hit their ceilings often take some time to do it.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Mar 15, 2010 12:58 AM EDT up reply actions
Slow down
Craig Biggio became an above average big league regular when he was Havens’ age. Same with Cano and Kinsler. And Ben Zobrist isn’t a very good comp for just about anyone, giving his radical change in production at 28. Brandon Phillips vastly eclipses him in raw tools, as does Hill. I like Havens a lot, and see him as a solid second baseman, but a lot of your reasoning is generous. You give him credit for his batting as a shortstop, even though you admit he won’t be a shortstop long term. You give him the benefit of the doubt that he’ll break out later because so many of the best second basemen in baseball have broken out late. Couldn’t he just as easily fall off a cliff like so many of the second basemen who aren’t in the majors? Sleeper superstar upside is really, really generous, and your reasoning seems to be too based on why not rather than why.
I'm not comping any of those players specifically to Havens
Just discussing how their development was ongoing through their mid-20s and many of them didn’t hit their ceilings until well after traditional prospect evaluation instincts suggest.
I’m not sure I agree that Hill “vastly eclipses” him in raw tools, Phillips obviously does. Why is Zobrist unfair in the context of Utley, Biggio, and Kent? Sure Biggio was average when he was a younger player, but he had a huge production spike in his late 20s. Kent didn’t have his until was 30. And opening day 2006, Cano was a full year older than Havens was when he was starting the AFL season. Kinsler was a year and a half older. They were both also somewhat raw defensively.
Of course Havens could fall off a cliff, almost any prospect in HiA could, I prefaced my argument by stating that. I just think he has an upside he rarely gets credit for given his skillset (contact, walks, and power all above average, fundamentally sound). I’m not saying I expect him to become a superstar, I’m just saying that its within the possible range of outcomes in a way that a lot of evaluators simply overlook when they see his low batting averages thus far. He’s actually in a very similar developmental stage as Utley was at the same age. Again, I’m not saying its likely he becomes Utley, just within the realm of possibility. If he hits .270-.280 with 25 HR, 30 doubles, and a .360 OBP during the peak of his career while playing average 2B defense, that’s a star second baseman, and without getting hyperbolic or suggesting he’ll have an Utley-esque career peak (I can’t stress enough how I don’t want to do that), that seems like a legit high end outcome here. Isn’t that what we’re discussing?
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Mar 15, 2010 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Going to bullet points here
-Zobrist is different from the other guys, because he vastly outperformed anything he had ever done at the age of 28. He was always an old minor leaguer and only in small sample sizes had he even come within screaming distance of that kind of production. Most people attribute it to either fluke or a complete redesign of his swing. Either way, it’s not part of some developmental path you can predict another player to take, and it’s far different from Kent and Utley.
Utley’s performance in the FSL as a 22-year old is somewhat similar to Havens’-better, in fact, because of the walk rate—but Utley went straight to Triple-A and performed very well the next year (for two straight years. It’s not his fault the Phillies kept him down so much of that second year, but they’re conservative like that).
-Biggio did peak in his late 20s, but the fact that he was already an above average major league player at such an early age had predictive value in that regard. A guy who’s an above average full-time big league player at 23 is more likely to blossom into a superstar later than a guy who spends that age in the minors. Plus, Biggio had significantly greater speed to work with and the unusual transition from catcher to second base to cope with. He broke out once he had a full year of second base under his belt (not that that’s necessarily the reason it happened then).
-Kent is possible in a shoot the moon outcome, I suppose, but it’s hard to predict a guy to develop like that. Especially since in his early years, Kent got traded every time it rained.
I’m not saying “Havens could fall off a cliff.” I’m saying I don’t think he’s on that high a cliff to begin with.
“[I]t seems like a legit high end outcome here. Isn’t that what we’re discussing here?” Not really. We’re discussing Ackley and Decker vs. Taylor and Havens. By any reasonable measure, Havens has the lowest likely upside, and he might have the lowest chance of getting there. I like Havens. I just see solid regular as the likely upside.
I guess we just disagree then
Obviously Ackley has the highest upside of the group, and all of these guys get some upside, but you haven’t really said anything that provides evidence for “solid regular” as a ceiling here. Is it because he’s already 22? His OPS was lowish (actually 10th best in the league among qualifiers, so not really)? Do you not see him sticking or playing average defense at 2B? Is there a complaint you have with a component of his offensive game? If you don’t see .270-.280, 25 HR, 30 2B, .360 OBP, and slightly above average defense as a reasonable upside, what do you see as a reasonable upside? If he did that he’d be approaching 5 WAR, which is pretty legit superstar.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Mar 15, 2010 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
You say reasonable upside, I say shoot the moon upside
He’s 23 and hasn’t set foot in Double-A yet. If he’s knocking on the door of the majors at the end of the year, I’ll be more optimistic, but I don’t see realistic star potential. Adjust for league and BABIP, sure, but adjust for those HBP, too. Let’s see him show 25-HR power and 30-double power in the high minors before we anoint him an easy all-star. Let’s see his batting average come up. How many guys bat .270 in the minors and are able to bat .270 in the majors? And Havens hasn’t sniffed that yet. How is .280 not wishcasting?
Low average, good walk rate, strong power, and subpar defense at short moved to solid defense at second. I like Jose Valentin as an upside comp, just without such a rough start to his majors career.
There were only 11 qualifiers in the FSL who hit .280 or better
Only two were younger than 22 last year: Ben Revere and Starlin Castro. The league HR leader had 18, and the league avg HR/AB was 1.58%, Havens was 3.82%.
By Jose Valetin, do you mean the Jose Valentin of 2006? Or the Jose Valentin of pre-2006/2007? In 2006, if he had a full season of PAs, he would have been a borderline superstar. Before that, he was a guy who generally had a 25+ K%, average walk rate, good power, and a consistently low BABIP. Do you expect Havens’ K% to tick up to 25%? His BB% to go from outstanding to average? Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. Lots of guys who make it to the majors eventually outperform their minor league numbers. Obviously many won’t, but that’s more a question of bust potential than upside.
If we were talking about a guy who was striking out 30% of the time, projecting an average between .270 and .280 would be wishcasting, but that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about a guy who played in a league that depressed offense, was one of the best all around hitters in the league, and made consistent contact. His AVG was low because of a low BABIP, which was because of a high IFFB%. Maybe he won’t correct that, but its not the same kind of problem as a high K%. My point is that he’s far more likely to reach the numbers I cited than a guy in a similar situation who had a decent/high average and low BB% rate, or a guy with a sky high K% and a .350 BABIP.
"All energy flows according to the whims of the great magnet
What a fool I was to defy him"
-HST
by Mark Himmelstein on Mar 15, 2010 8:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Let's see...
The Valentin thing was a quick and dirty comp on rough shape and level of production. I was talking about his early-thirties peak. You want to call it more consistently like Valentin’s best years, add a few walks, and subtract a few strikeouts? Fine. We’re still not talking about a star. We’re talking about a solid up the middle regular. And I’m not saying no one outhits their minor league performance, or that Havens can’t, but a player is more likely to do that if they’re young for their levels, and Havens has enough time in pro ball now that I’d like to see him even hit for an OK average once before I project him for a good average in the major. Hell, his averages were lousy for two of his three years in college.
“My point is that he’s far more likely to reach the numbers I cited than a guy in a similar situation who had a decent/high average and low BB% rate, or a guy with a sky high K% and a .350 BABIP.” OK, but being more likely than someone else doesn’t make him likely.
And saying only two of the eleven qualifiers who hit over 280 were under 22 is a little unfair. Prospects who perform well have a funny habit of getting promoted, which limits qualifiers. Montero, Stanton, even Kirk Niewenhuis. Which brings me to another point: since when do the Mets promote anyone too slowly in the minors? Anyone they’ve ever tabbed as a future star has been rushed or at least pushed. No one who’s seen him seems to think he’s a star. I haven’t even seen anyone put him in the Mets top five prospects. Carlos Guzman hit even better in the FSL and is only a few months younger than Havens.
Look, I’m a Mets fan, too. I’d love for the guy to turn out to be a star, too. But I don’t think you’re setting up reasonable expectations for him or projecting him rationally.

by 












