St. Louis Cardinals Top 20 Prospects for 2012
by John Sickels on Oct 19, 2011 11:45 PM EDT
Email
Print
St. Louis Cardinals Top 20 Prospects for 2012
The list and grades are a blending of present performance and long-term potential. Comments are welcome, but in the end all analysis and responsibility is mine of course. Full reports on all of players can be found in the 2012 Baseball Prospect Book. We are now taking pre-orders. Order early and order often!
QUICK PRIMER ON GRADE MEANINGS:
Grade A prospects are the elite. They have a good chance of becoming stars or superstars. Almost all Grade A prospects develop into major league regulars, if injuries or other problems don't intervene. Note that is a major "if" in some cases.
Grade B prospects have a good chance to enjoy successful careers. Some will develop into stars, some will not. Most end up spending several years in the majors, at the very least in a marginal role.
Grade C prospects are the most common type. These are guys who have something positive going for them, but who may have a question mark or three, or who are just too far away from the majors to get an accurate feel for. A few Grade C guys, especially at the lower levels, do develop into stars. Many end up as role players or bench guys. Some don't make it at all.
A major point to remember is that grades for pitchers do NOT correspond directly to grades for hitters. Many Grade A pitching prospects fail to develop, often due to injuries. Some Grade C pitching prospects turn out much better than expected.
Also note that there is diversity within each category. I'm a tough grader; Grade C+ is actually good praise coming from me, and some C+ prospects turn out very well indeed.
Finally, keep in mind that all grades are shorthand. You have to read the full comment in the book for my full opinion about a player, the letter grade only tells you so much. A Grade C prospect in rookie ball could end up being very impressive, while a Grade C prospect in Triple-A is likely just a future role player.
1) Shelby Miller, RHP, Grade A: Has everything needed to be a number one, rotation-anchor starter. Just needs to stay healthy and sharpen up his command a bit more.
2) Carlos Martinez, RHP, Grade B+: Outstanding arm, but needs some command refinements and a return to High-A is necessary in my view. Like Miller, he could become a number one starter if all goes well. Keep in mind that he's just 19. You can make a case for an A-.
3) Tyrell Jenkins, RHP, Grade B+: Another outstanding arm that needs innings and experience and good health. Pitching skills seem more polished than anticipated, and he's a terrific athlete. Like Martinez, you can make a case for an A-. This is one helluva troika the Cardinals have here.
4) Kolten Wong, 2B, Grade B+. Pure hitter with few weaknesses and won't need long in the minors. Possible outcome: Todd Walker with a much better glove.
5) Oscar Taveras, OF, Grade B+: Another pure hitter, main question is how much home run power he will develop. I lean optimistic. Keep in mind that he's only 19 years old.
6) Lance Lynn, RHP, Grade B: Took to bullpen role with ease, still under the rookie innings limit. What he did in the majors doesn't look like a fluke to me. I might end up going with a B+.
7) Zack Cox, 3B, Grade B: I've had some negative intuitive vibes about him, but he hit well enough in Double-A to ease some of those doubts. I still wonder about his home run power, which keeps him from a higher grade.
8) Eduardo Sanchez, RHP, Grade B: Like Lynn, he's under the rookie innings limit so I can list him here. Performance was no fluke, he just needs to stay healthy.
9) Jordan Swagerty, RHP, Grade B: Another very live arm, could reach the majors sometime in 2012 and help in the bullpen. Has the stuff and personality to close.
10) Trevor Rosenthal, RHP, Grade B: Well-kept secret, only Cardinals fans seem to be aware of how good he can be. Very good stuff, great component ratios, 4.11 ERA in low-A had a lot of bad luck in it and could easily have been a full run lower.
11) Matt Adams, 1B, Grade B: Power is real, but we'll have to see about the batting average and OBP.
12) Matt Carpenter, 3B, Grade B-: Only real negative is age, 26 entering ‘12. He hits for average, gets on base, shows moderate power, and always puts up excellent defensive stats despite mediocre reviews about his physical tools from scouts.
13) John Gast, LHP, Grade B-: Live-armed lefty needs to polish up his command. Has stuff of a number three starter, or could dominate in the pen.
14) Maikel Cleto, RHP, Grade C+: Upper-90s/100 MPH fastball. Still working the kinks out of his command and secondary stuff, but terrific upside.
15) Ryan Jackson, SS, Grade C+: Scouts have always been impressed with his glove, but he is starting to show something with the bat now, showing more pop. A larger-scale breakthrough is plausible.
16) Charlie Tilson, OF, Grade C+: Part of a large group of toolsy high schoolers picked up by the Cardinals in '11 draft. Will need a lot of development work, but could develop into leadoff force.
17) Joe Kelly, RHP, Grade C+: ERA was ugly in Double-A, but I like his sinking power stuff, and even a marginal improvement with his command (and his luck) could push him forward.
18) Brandon Dickson, RHP, Grade C+: You probably won't see him this high on other lists, as an older prospect without first-class stuff. But he throws strikes, and could surprise us with a surprising run of success if given a little luck and defensive support. There are many guys with higher upside in the system that you could list here instead, but I wanted to draw notice to Dickson.
19) Cody Stanley, C, Grade C+. I think he has more in the bat than he showed in the Midwest League.
20) Tommy Pham, OF, Grade C+ : Has always had the tools and was putting them together in Double-A before stopped by injury. Career .314/.398/.527 hitter in 264 Double-A at-bats.
OTHERS: Seth Blair, RHP; Adron Chambers, OF; Tony Cruz, C; Roberto De La Cruz, 3B; Victor De Leon, RHP; Anthony Garcia, OF (sleeper); Sam Gaviglio, RHP; Kyle Hald, LHP; Mark Hamilton, OF; Hector Hernandez, LHP; Deryk Hooker, RHP; Lance Jeffries, OF; Pete Kozma, SS; Seth Maness, RHP; C.J. McElroy, OF; Daniel Miranda, LHP; Kenny Peoples, SS; Adam Reifer, RHP (could rank as high as 15); Jonathan Rodriguez, 1B-3B; Robert Stock, C; Breyvic Valera, INF; Boone Whiting, RHP; Matt Williams, SS.
You have to love this system. You have three possible ace starting pitchers in Miller, Martinez, and Jenkins, and Rosenthal isn't far behind. You have pitchers who are ready to help right now with Lynn and Sanchez, and additional strong bullpen arms behind them. There is a nice mixture of the obvious power pitchers along with pitchability guys like Dickson, Maness, and other college products I don't have room to mention.
The offense is thinner but still has potential, with Wong, Cox, and Taveras all looking like big-league regulars eventually. Wong could be truly excellent if he develops to his maximal extent. Then you have guys who look like they could be strong role players at least. . .Carpenter, Adams, Pham, Jackson, etc.
Several of the players in the "other" category have high upsides and could vault forward on the list next year.
Overall, this looks like a very strong farm system to me.
190 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kolten Wong
Just a note – you have him as an OF. Should be a 2B (unless there’s been a change I haven’t heard?)
Jackson
Wasn’t he traded to the Dodgers for Furcal or am I thinking of someone else?
Castellanos
Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!' -- Whittier
Twitter
This has to be one of the most improved systems in the league, right?
Seth Blair is the only prospect to really underperform. Huge years out of the sleepers in Adams, Taveras, and Rosenthal. Good first looks from a few of the rookies, and there’s a solid mix of upside and Major League readiness
Of all sad words of tongue or pen; the saddest are these: 'It might have been!' -- Whittier
Twitter
This team actually has some very nice prospects,
Those top 4 sound pretty nasty i wouldnt mind any of them.
Both high end and good dept talent.
I think Ryan Jackson is earning that B- grade currently in AFL. It’s hard to believe that- catcher prospect, Bryan Anderson is no where to be found on this list.
really loving the Wong grade
Also, intrigued by your appreciation for Lance Lynn. He’s a nice arm and I’m not arguing with your thinking here (he’s been effective every step of the way), but being a borderline B+ prospect puts him in company that I have never seen him associated with.
Trevor Rosenthal is a dreamboat
John, do you think the Cards might try to push him to AA to start next year?
"Albert hits good pitches hard and bad pitches even harder. And when he gets in the batter's box, if you pray, then you start praying. And if you don't pray, you think about starting."--Brian Bannister
Trevor Rosenthal Update (as of end of regular season)
120 1/3IP, 133 K, 52 BB/HBP, 55 ER, 7 HR, 3.04 FIP
Postseason: 2 Starts- 15 IP, 9 H, 10 K, 2 BB, 3 ER, 19:10 GO:AO
by VolsnCards5 on Oct 20, 2011 12:21 AM EDT via mobile reply actions
O-Scar
John, I realize your grading of Bubba Starling is based more on the eye, scouting, and gut feeling but, I’d point out that Oscar Taveras is listed as being born two months before Bubba and, has already ripped the hell out of the MWL. No small feat. I’m moreso challenging Oscar’s grade than Bubba’s though.
My take is that one would have to see something really wrong in the reports on Taveras to not see him as a grade A-, at the least and, there isn’t.
I love Wong as much as anybody but, as far as I know he isn’t truly outstanding at 2b, is a year and a half older than Tavaras, and didn’t crush it as much. I swear, that Oscar’s biggest fault is actually hitting too well so that many can’t seem to know what to think about those numbers. So, they look for a way to dismiss them. Well, I’ve loooked and, he isn’t perfect but, there is plenty of skills surrounding that awesome hit tool of his.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
by casejud on Oct 20, 2011 12:21 AM EDT reply actions 1 recs
sigh
Oscar Taveras: The Ron Paul of minor league baseball prospects.
@ casejud
Both are edited by me since they are insider articles.
From a Jason Grey ESPN chat
Colin (Longmeadow, MA)
Have you been able to see Oscar Taveras?
Jason Grey (11:07 AM)
I’ve seen a couple of games of his thus far. He takes ferocious hacks at the ball, but his hand-eye coordination allows him to get away with that.
From an ESPN Keith Law article
It’s an unusual swing, and I’m not sure I could name a big leaguer, present or in the recent past, who had a swing like this.Max effort swings like this don’t often work out, but so far his hand-eye coordination has been more than enough to overcome it, and if he has a hole at all it may not be exposed until the upper levels or the majors.
My comments
The overall (unedited) nature of both comments are slightly more positive, but both are wary of his swing and believe superior hand-eye coordination are carrying Tavares so far against inferior pitching. They seem unsure if it can continue to do so.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 20, 2011 8:46 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
thanks for the post
Definitely some good points to keep in mind here, especially with his GB rate being what it is. I don’t know how much of that you can change about the guy without taking away what makes him who he is, but it sure sounds like he would be a good candidate to see a lot of his power dissipate against better competition without profound adjustments.
gary sheffield
wasn’t that hard to find a guy who succeded with a max effort swing
by Jake Rafferty on Oct 20, 2011 5:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Or Vladimir Guerrero
. . . and he just might. How the hell else do you huit .3 freaking 80 in the cold-ass Midwest League?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Thanks 'Cutch
A couple things. I have read and listened to a lot of Keith Law over the years and I am done taking his word over my own – done. Thise days are over. I do not believe him most the time about anything, sorry. I don’t care if he said he heard it striaght from Gods mouth, I just don’t. Nothing against the guy either.
Hand eye coordination is something that greatly helps all good major league hitters and, a necessary skill to make it in the big leagues as a hitter. Im not sure how that gets turned intop a criticism there.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"Im not sure how that gets turned intop a criticism there."
It’s not. Can you read? They’re lauding the hand-eye coordination. The criticism is of the swing mechanics, which, for Grey and Law, is overcome by the hand-eye coordination. Repeat, hand-eye coordination clearly being praised.
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 4:24 PM EDT up reply actions
I can read
You don’t need to ask me if I can read or, to take it so personally or, be insulting.
i didn’t read it that way. I read almost how some people talk about a pitcher having deception in his delivery. It is “praised” as a reason for his sucess but, at the same time used as an example of something that isn’t going to fly a higher levels. They did say that didn’t they? That was part of what they were saying about Taveras right?
In either case, I don’t buy it anyways. I “max effort” swing, conbined with great hand-eye coordination is a very nice combination.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
by casejud on Oct 21, 2011 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
"i didn’t read it that way."
Exactly, which is your normal problem: you read it incorrectly, or, more accurately, read the same thing as everyone else and interpreted it incorrectly.
Read the quotes again. Both Law and Grey are praising the hand-eye coordination. Unequivocally.
by blackoutyears on Oct 24, 2011 12:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Good for them
Who cares? You have some problems yourself “buddy”. Don’t you worry about mine ok? They may be praising his hand eye but, they are not giving unequivocal praise for his game as a hitter, and his swing, which is what I have a problem with.
I don’t want to hear about what kind of “max effort” swing he needs to “overcome”. Thats sounds like BS to me. I think thier “praise” of his hand-eye is faint praise. They are acting like it is something that will only help him against “inferior competition” instead of a vital skill to hit big league pitching, that he posseses in spades.
You don’t think there is an element of that in those guys comments at all or, are you just incapably dense when it comes to anything I have to say? I already know the answer to that one, by the way and, I already know what you going tyo say next. When it comes to Casejud, you aren’t human.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Dense?
From you? Holy crap. As usual, anytime someone doesn’t dish out unequivocal praise in line with your fanboy adulation, you characterize it as criticism. Objectively, when someone says that hand-eye coordination is so good that it offsets, compensates or covers up for a perceived flaw, that’s praise. Trying to call it a criticism is intellectually dishonest, which is of course your hallmark, so no surprise there. At no point was hand-eye coordination “turned intop [sic] a criticism”, except in the broadest sense, criticism not being inherently a pejorative as is typically held.
by blackoutyears on Oct 24, 2011 6:48 PM EDT up reply actions
"They may be praising his hand eye but, they are not giving unequivocal praise for his game as a hitter, and his swing, which is what I have a problem with."
It’s hilarious that you’d admit that they’re “praising his hand eye” and then go on to act as if calling it a criticism still makes sense. And sadly, you’re all too human…
by blackoutyears on Oct 24, 2011 6:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Blah, blah, blah
. . . the only reason I am a “fanboy” is that he is an extremely excellent young hitter, without any major flaws. I neither root for the Cardinals or even knew anything about Tavares until about four months ago. I know what a great, young hitter looks like though – both in watching him and, in looking at the results + thier context. If they would have wrote “He has a awesome, vicious swing combined with excellent hand-eye coordination, making him one of the best young hitters in the minors” then, I would agree. I am not going along with any of that BS about his swing. I have several reports fronm people who LOVE his swing so, I don’t stand alone. Not that I need backup on it anyways. Like you, I make my own evaluations on players.
We have already adressed and, deconstructed, whether they are criticizing his hand-eye. You win! I grant you that point. Go celebrate somewhere.
It is still part of a larger, more befudding criticism of his swing and the perceived future, of his offensive game, and you know this. Thats what they said and, what I just said.
Can you read? Lol
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
I grant you that point.
That’s “the” point, not a point. Facts matter, and ignoring distorting or mischaracterizing what someone because you’re butt-hurt that they don’t share your pants-crapping adoration for a player is intellectually dishonest.
There’s nothing befuddling about their critique. Nothing. Their remarks aren’t even particularly negative, simply reserved. In the simplistic world of “you don’t love him so you hate him” fanboy, that’s not good enough of course.
by blackoutyears on Oct 27, 2011 1:54 PM EDT up reply actions
"I neither root for the Cardinals or even knew anything about Tavares until about four months ago"
And this is phenomenal as always. I knew who Taveras was last year, and most people I know were aware of his being one of the Cardinals’ more interesting teenaged prospects. Hilarious that someone so clueless and is now such a huge fan.
by blackoutyears on Oct 27, 2011 2:02 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, nothing to say to that but . . .
. . . WHATEVER! It isn’t a contest to see what players enter each of conciousness first or, is it? Let me know and I’ll start competeing harder ok? I simply like to be concious of future big league stars, as soon as I can.
There was nothing being spoke of here that I was clueless about.
You are pretty clueless yourself, sice like two posts ago I said that I agree that they were praising his hand-eye coordination, in a way.
They can have reservations about him and, I can disdagree with them. What the hell is wrong with that? I’m not the least “hurt” about it or, his grading here. I just disagree! Why do I have a personal stake in it? That is rather comical to me. You are the only one who seems hurt by, like, every comment I make.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"They can have reservations about him and, I can disdagree with them."
That’s not what you did. You claimed that they were turning his hand-eye coordination into a criticism, when they were clearly and unequivocally praising it. Because you lack all objectivity and are both a poor critical thinker and communicator, you perceive anything but unalloyed positivity regarding your fanboy crushes as “criticism”. The remark is usefully called out as an insight into how your muddled mind works. And I use “works” loosely.
No one is hurt by your comments. I’m one of many here who feel that your “contributions” add nothing positive to the conversation, instead derailing it with your half-baked opinions and self-promotional b.s. Improve, or stfu and go away. As long as you insist on inflicting yourself on the discussion, expect to be called out as the screw-up that you are.
by blackoutyears on Oct 29, 2011 5:07 PM EDT up reply actions
We've already been over this
You are being obtuse or, dense, or both. I do not lack objectivity. I just have a higb opinion of this particular ballplayer. There are PLENTY of objective reasons to do so.
I believe there was some criticism in those comments. You don’t even rank prospects so ity is you who should excuse himsdelf from the conversation. I ain’y going nowhere Man.
You can “call me out” all you want. I love it!
I neitgher insulted anybody or, did anything but, express my opinion. I don’t have anything to feel bad about. Shit, I even admitted I was wrong and, I do pretty little to promte myself.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"I do pretty little to promte myself."
This is a joke right? Coming from the guy who claimed he could do a better job than a major league GM? It doesn’t get much more self-promotional than that.
If you simply expressed your opinion, no one would care. It’s the half-baked thinking behind the opinion and your OMG!!! tantrums when anyone disagrees with you that are at issue. You’re not in a position to gainsay anyone posting here, much less pundits or professional evaluators.
And of course there was criticism in the comments above, but none of it had to do with hand-eye coordination, and that mischaracterization on your part is not to be glossed. You constantly distort and mischaracterize opinions which don’t agree with yours, whether willfully or due to incompetence. I’m inclined toward that latter as the former gives you too much credit.
by blackoutyears on Nov 2, 2011 12:58 PM EDT up reply actions
You don't want to hear what kind of 'max effort' swing he needs to overcome?
Then don’t read it. It’s a reasonable concern for a scout to draw, regardless of your feelings on the matter.
I don’t get why praise for Taveras has to be “unequivocal” in order for it to meet your seal of approval or be correct but there are reasonable concerns drawn by reasonable people about Taveras’s approach at the plate. It works in the lower levels and we’ll have to wait and see whether it will work at the upper levels or changes will need to be made. For those reasons, he’s not an “A” prospect. I fail to grasp why you seem so personally offended by that.
"I fail to grasp why you seem so personally offended by that."
That’s his m.o. Fixate on a prospect or three and get mortally wounded if there isn’t universal acclaim. It’s the worst kind of time-wasting subjectivity.
by blackoutyears on Oct 31, 2011 10:32 AM EDT up reply actions
A total mischaracterization
I am neither wounded, hurt, nor offended. I simply, disagree.
I don’t think there is anything in his swing that woukld call for concern or, reservation. I mostly find it funny. What, have you never had an opinion on a player that differed strongly frok a scouting rteport?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"I am neither wounded, hurt, nor offended"
Clearly you are, or you wouldn’t feel the need to leap to Taveras’ defense every time you feel he’s not being sufficiently fellated.
by blackoutyears on Nov 2, 2011 1:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, I just like to make sure
. . . O-Scar is being fellated properly. What’s wrong with that?
Clearly, I’m not hurt, because . . . I said so!
Since we are in complete annonymity here I can fully confess everything here. I could say that I am in love with Osacr Tavares if I wanted. I wouldn’t have any problem with that at all!
I could say that everytime someone utters a word of even faint-praise about him, my heart sinks, and I cry.
Or, I could just say, that I disgaree with it. Like, everyone else on here who disagrees with something.
You wouldn’t understand because you cannot see the future like I can. I told a million people here that all of the concerns over Madison Bumgarner were horsyshit and, this turns out to be competely true. I do it all the time.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"You wouldn’t understand because you cannot see the future like I can. I told a million people here that all of the concerns over Madison Bumgarner were horsyshit and, this turns out to be competely true. I do it all the time.'
A fine example of your humility and lack of self-promotion.
by blackoutyears on Nov 3, 2011 5:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Only
. . . when it is ob vi ous. Tavares and Altuve are not hard to spot. Thats the only time it rankles me. Your fortm of “objectivity” is worse. You actually think you have the skills or, accuity to evaluate ballplayers. I’ll take my subjectivity over your “objectivity” any day.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"You actually think you have the skills or, accuity to evaluate ballplayers"
I have no idea where you got this idea. I do compare notes with evaluators who are nice enough to correspond with me, and generally find my observations jibe with theirs, but you clearly have no idea what objectivity means as I have never made any claim to my observations being anything but subjective. Go ahead and find me something. I’ll wait.
by blackoutyears on Nov 2, 2011 1:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Lol
I don’t care enough to look. A better question is why are accsuing me of being subjective if, you yourself are also subjective?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"why are accsuing me of being subjective if, you yourself are also subjective?"
Because there’s nothing wrong with subjectivity in and of itself. It’s people like you who give it a bad rap. lol
Watch out, we’re in the deep end of the pool now…
by blackoutyears on Nov 3, 2011 5:32 PM EDT up reply actions
Because . . .
I disagree with it. I think it sounds like hokum, just to me.
I can agree that they may be normally, reasonable people and, still isagree with them right?
I fail to grasp why you think I am personally offended. I am not. Why would I be offended by someone else’s opinion on a ballplayer? Where I come from, that can only help me. I just disagree. Lots, and lots of players have been given grade A’s after a season in A ball Man. Thats hardly an argument.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
This is one of the dumbest things I've heard
Chuck, we are all here to read things – then either agree or, dfisdagree with them. It doesn’t meat my “seal of approval” because I don’t agree with it.
Thats fairly similar to ANYBODY who dfisdagrees with ANYTHING, isn’t it?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
You don't
disagree like normal people. Witness all caps words, notoriously typo-ridden posts, uniform failure to consider new evidence regarding your fanboy crushes, feverish, incoherent defenses of same. There’s no separation between you and your opinion. That’s where the objectivity is supposed to go, but you couldn’t slide a credit card in that gap.
by blackoutyears on Nov 2, 2011 1:13 PM EDT up reply actions
Nobody cares
. . . about your obsession with me, nobody. I love the attention but, have some consideration for the other readers here. They don’t care, boy.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
You're mistake
is thinking I don’t speak for many people. If you had any of the humiity you referenced you’d be ashamed of yourself.
by blackoutyears on Nov 3, 2011 5:34 PM EDT up reply actions
I've been watching the debate
over Taveras drag on for weeks, but he just doesn’t seem that controversial to me.
Christian Yelich has nearly the same skill set and statistical profile and generates none of the clamor of Taveras. Both are corner outfielders, with average tools except the hit tool, which is nearly universally described as a plus for both players.
So far in his Career Taveras has a .322 /.381 /.496 compared to Yelich’s .312 /.388/.484 line. Taveras’ ISO is .174 compared to Yelich’s .172; K rate is 15% to 19.6%, walk rate 9.2% compared to 10.6% and both have high Babip on the year (.440 to .373).
We all know the Babip for Taveras is unsustainable, but his skill set has been pretty well defined this season, and it looks pretty similar to a player who generates none of the drama of Taveras.
babip
Some (or at least some) view BABIP differently in the minors – particularly the low minors – than they do in the majors. In the majors a high BABIP is looked at as unsustainable, and we expect regression to the mean. In the low minors, it may be an indicator that the player is hitting the ball with authority and thus his hit skill may translate better to higher levels.
We have better ways of determing this however
batted ball profile and Isolated power are a much better determiner of future performance than BABIP in isolation.
This year OT had a 50% ground ball and 19% line drive rate according to First inning, CY had a 55% and a 22%, respectively.
The more I look at them, the more I believe they are very similar players, and according to one’s preference should be ranked accordingly.
doesn't seem that similar to me
Yelich has plus, perhaps even plus-plus power potential.
But sure, if you’re just going off of raw numbers for two teenagers in A ball, fairly similar. Of course, you don’t see a whole lot of people agitating for Yelich (who is the superior prospect) to have a grade starting with an “A” . . .
I agree people are
pushing for Taveras to high north with their rankings, but others are also discounting what he potentially brings to the table. I also could see arguments in either players favor for who is the superior player.
Concerning Yelich, I personally haven’t seen a scouting report that defines him as plus power potential(not implying they don’t exist, I just haven’t seen them), just that he is young and lean and has considerable projection because of these factors. The same could be said about Taveras.
here's one
I personally see a lot of power to come, not just from his build, but from his swing. I know JD Sussman over at Bullpen Banter was very high on his offensive potential, as well.
I think Taveras has some room to add strength, but I’m less convinced that his swing and approach will lead to power production. Line drives, perhaps, but he looks totally geared for contact to all fields to me. That’s fine, as it definitely doesn’t preclude a major league future for him, but it’s going to be very interesting to see if he can jump on quality pitching anywhere as effectively as he managed to do this year.
They very well might develop in different ways
but what if Yelich or Taveras maintain their Circa .200 ISOs through out their career, does that discount either one’s pure and strongest asset, their ability to hit for average?
Said another way, an above average hitter with average power and average skills across the board still is a good player, correct?
I'm confused what you mean
Their minor league careers are largely irrelevant.
But taking on your second question, yes, that is a useful player. At corner outfielder, that might make for “just” a decent regular or even a bit less than that (depending on how often the player can get on base), but it should result in a good number of ABs annually. The overall package of skills that a player needs to be a meaningful contributor in an outfield corner should never be underestimated, of course.
What I meant by the
first question is, he doesn’t have to add a tremendous amount of power to his future power production to be an above average big league player. His scouting profile right now means he has the potential to be that, and he shouldn’t be discounted because he doesn’t project to hit 40 home runs a year.
who are you referring to?
Taveras? I haven’t really seen any signs that he’s being “discounted”. :)
To be an above-average corner outfielder, especially as one with somewhat suspect plate discipline, he almost certainly needs at least two out of these three: plus contact, plus power, plus defense. Seems reasonable to expect the first, but I don’t believe in the other two.
I’m hoping AFL sources will throw us some dirt on Taveras’ makeup. That is a possible deal-breaker for me, as well . . .doing my own research on him a few weeks back, I was struck by how often “questionable work ethic” and the like show up in relation to him.
That is what he meens
When you say you say he is lacking power for a corner of, you are discounting him for it.
When you say his makeup isnt good, you are discounting him for it.
Regardless of the debate on these two topics, that is what he is talking about.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
that's a very peculiar way to look at things
Should I assume that all prospects start out as perfect specimens and then “take off points” for negatives? Or should I build an evaluation from the ground up?
I don’t believe I am “discounting” him for these attributes unfairly or unnecessarily. Something like average power DOES limit a player to some degree (although the limit varies depending on the offensive demands of the position), that would seem rather intuitive. The germane question is: “Is the fact that he has an average power projection being considered in relation to his case more than or less than it should be?” After all, a good argument can be made that for a young corner outfielder, power projection is actually the most desirable attribute – which means that if I am using power projection as a negative against him, I might actually be underestimating the degree to which I should be taking it into consideration.
Its really just semantics
I think. You are taking the word “discounting” to mean discounting UNFSAIRLY. While I think he is using the word “discounting” as just your reasons for evaluating him as you do. I could be wrong but, I think that is what he meant.
As for your question about power projection I would say that A) You may be very well be correct that power projection is more desireable attrubute, yes Sir. B) I don’t know If it is being conmsidered more or less than it should be C) I think there is considerable debate over the quality of his power projection and is not universally projected as average D) I personally think his power has many, many reasons from fifferent angles, to project much higher.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
irrelevant
Right, asside from mthe fact that most guys can’t even GET to the majors without a good minor league career. Other than that, its irrelevant. Oh and, other than most of on here – what, thousands of us? – spensd endless amounts of time talking at looking at the resuklts of these minor league careers. Yes, irrelevant sums it up. lol
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
'(Christian Yelich has) never run & never will'?
I know this link is outdated (& besides the point re: power), but ‘yeesh’.
to be fair, I think that has surprised most everybody
Not sure what happened there, his athleticism seems to have been generally overlooked or underestimated. That, or he has some fabulous instincts.
Yelich
I feel like Christian’s athleticism was one of his major pluses and I don’t feel that was a secret really two Junes ago. He runs well & there was sentiment that he could maybe even handle CF if memory serves (he played just short of 30 games there this year).
Maybe this guy just saw him hit & assumed he wasn’t a good runner because he is so tall & lanky? I don’t really know.
Two things
Yelich may have more power potential than Oscar but, there isn’t any evidence that he does. He doesn’t HIT for more power and Yelich played in a great great park for home runs in half his games this year. I don’t see it.
Nobody here is clamoring for Yelich to be graded anything because nobody here roots for the Marlins. He is a very good prospect. I’d put himn at a B+ and he reminds me of James Loney.
Tavares, I woukld actually make an A.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
what, Taveras has a strong Constitution?
by JoelGuzman'sScout on Oct 20, 2011 10:26 AM EDT up reply actions
two ways to read this
1) I’m thinking baseball, and you’re thinking Dungeons & Dragons.
2) You’re getting vibes of Ron Paul pushing aside his podium at one of the debates and snarling, “I am the Constitution.” And then using the Force to throw Michele Bachmann at Yoda.
by mrkupe on Oct 20, 2011 11:08 AM EDT up reply actions 5 recs
That is fantastic.
On Twitter at RedSoxFaithful
Blogging at WAU: The Blog
by RedSoxFaithful on Oct 20, 2011 9:52 PM EDT up reply actions
That made me laugh
FAR harder then it should have
I've been hearing a lot about how this guy has a low chance of success because of his "max effort swing"
Still, it’s all been kind of abstract. I haven’t heard any specific examples of guys who hit extremely well in the low minors at a young age (good overall line backed up by low K-rate, good power), who because of their “max effort swing” struggled when they reached higher levels. Can you guys name anyone?
Well
another tidbit from the Keith Law article is that no current or former player he’s ever seen has a remotely similar swing to Tavares, so from that I would conclude “No.”
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 20, 2011 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not talking about guys with a swing that reminds Keith Law of Oscar Taveras's
Just asking, is there any evidence that this “max effort swing” thing a useful predictor of failure when the guy has a good contact rate?
dude
a B+ grade is really good. i don’t understand what the debate is about.
last year, Sickels’s B+ hitters last year were between #12-25 among hitters. that’s already pretty high, and higher than what plenty of naysayers would have him at.
take what you can get and leave it be.
by blue bulldog on Oct 20, 2011 2:43 PM EDT up reply actions
I watched a lot of Midwest League games this year
the most impressive group in the league were the outfielders. I thought there was a decent group of future MLB regulars with Liriano, Marisnick, and Taveras leading the way. Marisnick being the one with the most polish/potential. Taveras and Liriano were super young.
It was a down year for the league. I think the real problem with evaluating hitting in the Midwest league this year was the lack of pitching. Outside of Tajuan Walker and a brief stint from Martinez who pitched in this league? The Lee kid from the dodgers maybe, but he still looked kinda raw when I saw him. I dont think many of these guys make it to the show as starters.
What did you think of
some of the other notable hitters, like Wong and Cuthbert? Any looks at Torreyes or Ronny Rodriguez?
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 11:44 AM EDT up reply actions
Wong
Was the best middle infield bat I saw, him and Torreyes. Wong really out classed the pitching with his approach. I want to see Torreyes make it bad, my favorite player I saw this year. Excellent contact skills, but physically it is going to be a climb. I dont think Billy Hamilton makes it, cant steal first. Severely overrated.
Rodriguez is interesting…gut tells me he makes it. Good tool set (decent glove, decent power, decent swing) just needs a better approach. I would take him in my system. High Risk / High Reward.
Castellanos I thought was really good especially since he was young for the stop. Castellanos will stick at 3rd going forward…I dont think Cuthbert makes is as a 3rd baseman. Position becomes an issue and if position is an issue then he needs to hit. That said I liked the swing but he had some approach issues. He is a toss-up in my book.
that’s the first good thing i’ve heard about Casty at 3B and the first bad thing i’ve read about Cuthbert at 3B.
R.I.P. cwhitman412, Frederick0220, & Mets2k9
http://twitter.com/doublestix
I should expand my thinking there...
…Cuthbert is a good looking athlete. Strong arm, quick feet, good speed…I think this is where the scouts fall in love. If he doesnt stick at 3rd he is a gold glove RF.
When I saw him he couldn’t foul off an off speed pitch to save his life. I caught a golden sombrero where he swung through 9 strikes, didnt even foul a ball off.
People need to remember that the Midwest league starts the season with more high school arms that throw a lot of fastballs and ends the season with a lot more 4 year college types from the draft. The pitchability guys destroyed Cuthbert, just ate him for lunch. I think this goes a long way to explaining the splits you see during the season.
Thanks for the reports
I agree that Torreyes’ lack of physicality is going to make things tough. Good to hear a corroborating report about the abilty though. What were your impressions of his defense? I’ve gotten nothing but good reviews.
Rodriguez’s swing was the question for me. He’s an extremely athletic, toolsy guy, but the swing in available video (2010 vintage) was problematic. Sounds like he’ll stick at SS, which is huge.
I’ve liked Wong (that sounds good…) since his junior year at Hawaii. Not just a high floor guy for me, and I thought he was a great get by the Cards. He’s like the idealized version of the gritty, hustle-suck guys they constantly run out in the MIF.
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 4:14 PM EDT up reply actions
My generic good outfielder comp...
…is Shane Victorino. I use that comp for everyone. Seriously he has a shot at consistently going 350+obp/450slug/20hr/20sb/100 runs scored 4-6 WAR type playing solid CF. He is going to play in the majors. He might have a couple all-star campaigns. He is going to have to really hit a lot of doubles to max his value, but he had the gap power / speed combo to do that.
Highly valuable prospect.
Wrong
It’s Mike Cameron, obviously.
Eagerly waiting to hear the Cox to Wong to Pujols double play call.
Don't forget number 5.
Oscar Taveras has done nothing but impress. Destroyed the MWL this year as one of its youngest prospects. He’d be 3rd easily if I were ranking the system
Not only top 5 but Lynn and Cox have some nice potential too
Wasnt Lynn primarily a starter until he reached the major leagues? If he can become that again for this team, watch out.
And I am higher on Cox than John is, but a straight B grade is nothing to be ashamed of.
This Cardinal system is the best of the ones profiled so far.
I think a B grade for Cox is generous
He probably maxes out at a 3-3.5 win player — slightly above average hitter, slightly below average glove. That’s nothing to sneeze at, of course, but if the power never comes, and he had only a .139 ISO in the Texas League this year, he’s not going to be much better than average.
I tend to think a B ranking is about right for Lynn and Cox
Lynn was a starter that got moved to the bullpen. He was drafted with a supplemental pick and profiled as a fast mover who could be a number 4-5 starter. I think that still applies. I believe he added a few MPH moving to the bullpen, so I don’t think his impressive stint in the majors should really change what we’d expect him to do in the rotation.
At any rate, with the Cardinals’ rotation set and the top-tier arms they already have in the minors, I doubt Lynn ever gets much of a look in the rotation unless it’s with a different team.
Great post
As always I really appreciate your insights. A reccomendation for you. You might consider taking preorders for the PDF file of your book as well. I have purchased it each of the past 3-4 years and will do so again. Might make sense to lock the cash in your pocket until the book comes out and you are comfortable with distributing the PDF (and I and possibly others would probably be happy to fork it over).
On to repectful critiques. I have been brainwashed into believing that relievers are not as valuable as starters and therefore would knock Lynn, Sanchez and Gast down five slots or so. Additionally, I would probably push Jackson up a peg or two and drop Dickson out (which you expected and obviously have a more reasoned opinion that I).
Thanks again for the insights (and affirmation about my excitement regarding the state of the Cards system)…
I'm not a big fan of Cox or Adams
Adams had huge numbers and will hit anything in the zone. But he guesses, commits early, and chases a lot of bad pitches. Pitchers in the majors will eat him alive if they have command. He could prove me wrong, but I saw him swing at more balls in the dirt or out of the zone than any other player in AA last year.
Cox doesn’t seem like he’ll develop much power. He has some adjustments to make. I actually caught his first AA home run last year. And almost caught his second. Both in left center with the wind blowing out at 15 MPH. And both wouldn’t have made it out without the wind. He didn’t pull the ball well either.
The pitchers in this system are far better than the hitters. But, if Albert stays in StL, they won’t need as much as they’ve got some bats locked up for a few years and they could trade off some of those pitchers for some bats.
I'm less worried about Adams' bat
And more worried about his body. It’s not a surprise to see him be aggressive in a hitter’s park and in an organization where he’s going to need to kill the ball to get noticed, so I’m willing to take a hold on that for the moment. His strikeouts are actually relatively low for his production, especially when you consider that he was skipping a level, so it doesn’t seem to have been THAT glaring an issue. How much if at all does he change his approach with a two strike count?
The glaring problem for him is that it’s hard to see where he plays. I’m VERY skeptical that he can play anywhere but 1B, and even that might go by the wayside before long.
Cox or Adams
Fan or not- both are still legit B prospect- unlike Christian Colon & Brett Eibner, who both having a B- grades, is a complete reach for me. A couple of Zack Cox 13 HR’s were tweeted as absolute bombs (pulled) on twitter by people who were following him during these games.
Matt Adams skips high A and still produces huge numbers in AA- bat isn’t a issue, but glove is another story.
by Joe Schroeder on Oct 20, 2011 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
thi is a system that is always underrated.
take a look at their ML roster and it’s loaded with homegrown players… they seem to have found a niche in developing bullpen arms and they’re also good at not giving up on guys who are a tic or 2 behind the optimal age curve… Craig, Jay, and Freese are all significant contributors now and they were all like 25 or more when they burst onto the scene in StL… looks like Carpenter will be the next of that group to make an impact in ’12…
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Oct 20, 2011 9:52 AM EDT reply actions
"looks like Carpenter will be the next of that group"
Might be tough with Freese in his way, unless he can play multiple positions like Craig. I agree that STL does a nice job of valuing these guys. Ludwick was the same guy and he was very good for them.
by blackoutyears on Oct 20, 2011 9:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I would put Bryan Anderson in this group as well
At the very worst turns into an every day catcher for a lower division team able to put up consistent offensive output and good defense.
at very worst?
Sure, he’s a catcher and they take longer to develop . . .but he hasn’t topped 109 games in a season (or 100 games in a season since 2007, for that matter). He’s also had 4 cracks at Triple A, so I think even at his relatively young age, we have a pretty good feel for what to expect from him, and it’s not all that exciting.
Not saying he will be an all star type guy
But neither will Jay, or Freese or Craig most likely.
This is what the Cards do though, they have a ton of guys that they extract the very most out of efficiently to go along with their 3 or 4 big stars, and its what makes them so successful.
If he were to replace Molina in 2013 I wouldnt see it as a huge detriment overall to the performance of the team.
I think that
undersells Freese especially. A-S is a quirky standard but suffice it to say that I think Craig is only constrained in the near future by no projectable daylight in the Card OF as long as their alignment is set to be Holliday, Jay, and Berkman and assuming that Pujols re-signs, I’m not sure where Craig would play. He looks like he could be a fine player though when he eventually will get the opportunity.
by ThnkGoodnessforHowieRose on Oct 20, 2011 10:56 AM EDT up reply actions
I think Craig has more pure hitting talent than Freese
It was a small (200ish PA) sample size this year but he had a better wRC+ than anyone on that league-leading offense other than Berkman. If Craig gets a full season I’m expecting big things. I think what Freese has done in the majors is what we can expect from him in the future, with a lower batting average and more power.
I wish
Craig had a clear path to playing time, but a Pujols re-sign spells PT issues with Berkman back and Freese manning 3B. I know TLR played Craig at 2B a handlful of games and was planning to play him there more if Craig hadn’t gotten hurt. Was he viable there, and would a new manager consider it do you think?
by blackoutyears on Nov 4, 2011 6:22 PM EDT up reply actions
i think many cards fans will have low expectations for 2B defense.
we have employed Skip Schumaker there for the past 3 years, after all. i think Craig can be >Dan Uggla with the glove there. it is eminently more palatable if we resign Furcal. Berkman can’t play outfield many more years, so once he goes we can move Craig there if his defense is deemed insufficient or Wong is ready.
god, i like this system.
HAPPY FLIGHT!!!
Running list of Molina pick-offs | twit
I'm interested
to see you reference Uggla, as that’s exactly the guy who sprang to mind when I asked the question.
As for the system, I’m a Reds fan and I like it! lol
by blackoutyears on Nov 5, 2011 3:43 PM EDT up reply actions
well
We still don’t know if he can handle the workload of being a starter, and we don’t know how his bat (which is already empty average) will hold up.
I think he’d be a very respectable backup option, but hard to depend on him for more than that. I like the other three guys a lot more.
I think taking Molina out of the mix
has a significant impact on both sides of the ball. He’s made himself into a solid hitter and is one of the better catchers I watch on a regular basis. he’s everythign that makes this team tick, curse his scarlet-feathered soul! lol
I’m a big fan of Craig’s. Great approach and legit power. Just needs an opportunity.
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 11:50 AM EDT up reply actions
I keep telling people that Craig is a legit hitter
A Rangers fan friend of mine was complaining about the feeling of getting beaten in game 1 by someone he had never heard of. I just rolled my eyes. I really believe in his bat, he just needs to get the playing time and stay healthy.
Ceterum censeo La Russa ire necesse est.
Right
It’s easy to overlook him as he was old for his level of comp and because he didn’t have a set defensive position, but he’s had an awfully impressive minor league career highlighted by extremely good Double- and Triple-A performance. Once I got to see him I saw why. Just a very sound hitter. I’m rooting for the Rangers, but was secretly pleased when Craig got key hits in both of the first two games. ;-)
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 3:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Anderson's
got minor league FA written all over him at this point. Maybe he can make it in another organization but his star has faded tremendously over the last 3-4 years.
I agree...
…Cody Stanely at 19 on this list, will probably play for the Cards. He will hit a little in a limited role; play decent defense; and save the team 1 million a year on a back-up catcher. That is a lot of value for a 4th rounder. I think they do a terrific job of getting kids that will actually play in the majors for cheap in the 4-15 rounds where most teams a flailing away.
I'm skeptical of Carpenter
I think he profiles as a utility guy. I guess utility guys can make an impact but Craig, Jay, and Freese are all starters (or could be if Pujols doesn’t return) and I don’t see that happening for Carpenter. Assuming that is a bit of a reach, IMO.
lynn over sanchez?
i think sanchez has closer potential, and i dont quite see it in lynn. is lynn higher because he is projected as a starter?
i’d put cox at B+, but that may be do to a little fanboy bias. other than that, i pretty much agree with every ranking. very nice list.
lynn
Plus Lynn seems a lot more durable.
by John Sickels on Oct 20, 2011 10:55 AM EDT up reply actions
Tyler Rahmatulla
I know he is a little older and it was the Appy league but I think he deserves a blurb in the book. The guy mashed in and has a good pedigree but he isn’t listed in the “others” category. I like him better than guys like Stock and Rodriguez who are listed.
That brings up another point. I liked the Stock pick a couple years ago becasue I figured it he couldn’t hit, he would pitch. Why hasn’t that trigger been pulled yet?
Rahmatulla
Great post, Rick… if he doesn’t get suspended this past season for academics reasons or injured his sophomore year after UCLA clinching a berth to the World Series in a dog pile… no way he falls to the 34th round in the draft. The Cardinals got a gift with that selection in that round.
by Joe Schroeder on Oct 20, 2011 11:51 AM EDT up reply actions
"The Cardinals got a gift"
Agreed. At the very least he’s a rock solid defender at 2B. He had pro actions at the position as a college sophomore. Classic STL player.
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 11:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Stock
STL still believes that he can be a decent catching prospect, so he won’t get moved until he thoroughly exhausts his options as a catcher – more valuable to have a decent LHH catcher than a bullpen arm. Motte didn’t convert until he was 24 y.o. with three years as a C in the minors; Stock hasn’t yet turned 22. I think they’ll give Stock at least all of 2012 to prove that he’s not a catcher before moving him to the mound.
agh...
Forgot the link I was going to attach – look about 2/3 of the way down the article:
Ryan Jackson is my current favorite player in the system
I just love the glove so much. Plus, he is doing well so far in the AFL. He is pure grit and scrappiness.
I'm a fan, so far
wRC+ of 99 in the Texas League is nothing to sneeze at for a top notch defensive SS. Think Brendan Ryan’s glove w/ a better bat and less goofiness.
Hmm
How about just, think, Brendan Ryan? That sounds more likely to me. Ryan .745 OPS in AA, Jackson was .749. Still, If he has the glove, thats a decent player.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Compared to the KC system...
This list has more B+ or better guys (5-4), more straight B or better (11-7) and, like the Royals, all 20 players are C+ or better. Excellent depth here, in both high-upside farmhands and useful role players.
Very nice write-ups, John. (I’m more than a bit surprised, though, to see Taveras down at #5, and below the A/A- level, after an historic MWL season; if Cheslor Cuthbert was “dominant” over the first half of the year, with his .870 or so OPS…than what does that make Taveras’ 1.078?)
JS: You describe Tilson as toolsy, but can he eventually be a 15-18 HR guy?
Thanks for all the fine work, John.
i think people need to calm down a little
with regards to the grades and comparisons
Taveras is a B+. that means that for John, he’s probably somewhere between #25-50 out of a Top 100 prospect list (obviously, you can’t just add the hitters and pitchers lists together, but i think this serves as a reasonable estimate). i personally would have probably had Taveras in that #20-30 range (do you have him much higher than that?), but it seems entirely reasonable to shade that towards #25-50 if his elite numbers aren’t backed up by elite scouting reports.
Cuthbert was given a Grade B+/Borderline A-. That means the two players are probably separated by ten spots or so on John’s Top 100 list (if he’s thinking/imagining a Top 100 list). That kind of difference is fairly meaningless, in the sense that people shouldn’t really be expected to give any meaningfully strong sense of confidence that a Rank 20 prospect is going to be much better, if at all, than a Rank 30 prospect.
by blue bulldog on Oct 20, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
I thought that Mekonsrock said in a previous thread that he had Taveras as the No. 1 or 2 prospect in the game
I mean, seriously . . .did you think we were arguing all that time about the difference between Taveras being a top 40 prospect and Taveras being a top 75-100 prospect? :)
by mrkupe on Oct 20, 2011 11:54 PM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
Exactly
Also, I would say that he and I are probably his biggest supporters on here and he seems very calm, and I am calm. Why is such a dreaded thing to get into a heated discussion about something anyways?
To Blue Dog – the differences are NOT meaningless. At least, not when I make a list. The top 10 guys are way more likely to have major league careers than the 10-20 guys, etc. At least if they are ranked correctly.
The reason why, generally, a #30 prospect has a better career than a #18 guy on someones list is, generally, that he wasn’t or shouldn’t have been ranked there.
There are plenty here who don’t care about lists – or resent them. There are others here who MAKE a list but, STILL don’t care about them – can’t figure that one out yet. Then there are guys like me who look at a list and enjoy the challenge of seeing if it will refelect the top players in the show a few years down the road – not just a list of names, randomly ordered.
Like hitting 1.000, its impossible to do perfectly but, we keep trying nonetheless..
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
that wasn't my point
obviously the expected value of a #18 prospect should be better than the expected value of a #30 prospect. otherwise you’re doing something wrong in your ranking.
i’m talking about confidence level in any particular prospect doing better than another. in other words, how confident are you, that the #18 guy is going to do better than the #30 guy. are you 90% confident the #18 guy is going to be better? 80% confident? you should be more than 50% confident, because you gave him the higher ranking, but just how much more?
just think about it for a second, on any past list you have ever done. pick two random players, separated ten or so spots. how high are the odds that you are willing to give, that the higher ranked player will be more valuable than the lower ranked player?
if you do this mental game, you should immediately realize that your confidence level should be fairly low. obviously, you should be quite a bit more confident the #1 prospect in baseball will have more value than the #10 prospect. but as you go further and further down the list, you should notice that your confidence level continues to drop closer and closer to 50%.
otherwise, i would love for you to make annual lists, allow me to pick any two prospects on that list separated by about 10 spots, and give me 9:1 odds on a bet (if you believe the higher ranked player has a 90% shot at being better than the lower ranked player) that the lower ranked player will end up better.
by blue bulldog on Oct 21, 2011 2:06 PM EDT up reply actions
Lol
Well, I don’t know why Id have to be 90percent certain of something for it to be significant? :)
A .330 hitter doesn’t get a hit 90 percent more than a .262 hitter but, nobody seriously argues that the differences are meaningless BD.
There is a wide gulf between 90 percent and meaningless, as you charcterise it. Besides, you are quitting before you even start If you look at your own list that way, aren’t you?
By the way, that is a great and interesting way top do a prospect list, by the way. I wish everybody did it that way. It’d be fun and I’d love the challenge. I’ll even take your bet but, we’ll have to talk about those odds first Man :)
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
9:1
was an exaggeration for effect
but your analogy makes my point very well. nobody would be surprised at all if a 330 hitter went 0-fer in any given game, whereas the 262 hitter went 2-4. that happens all the time. to the extent that you think the 262 hitter might match up better against the type of pitcher being faced, it is completely reasonable to expect the 262 hitter to do better in a specific game
back to why i brought this whole issue up. it’s largely meaningless for people to complain about the relative ranking of a prospect like Taveras at B+ and a prospect like Cuthbert at B+/A-, that’s probably separated by ten spots or so, on a Top 100 list. if you think Taveras is better than Cuthbert, but are only confident enough to give like a 55:45 set of odds that Taveras will end up being better, then a significant chunk of the time Cuthbert will end up better as a prospect.
and it’s not inconceivable, that when your confidence margin is so low, that additional information/perception that John has that people here don’t, completely erases that margin, or flips it to the other side, such that Cuthbert is expected to be better than Taveras with 55:45 odds.
do you see now why i think it’s not that meaningful to complain about relative rankings that close?
by blue bulldog on Oct 21, 2011 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps
I haven’t really look at those two guys, side by side, but I see what you are talking about.
Although, I have to say that I am talking more abouty a guy being ranked 40 when he should be ranked 5, in this case.
You batting average analogy doesn’t work, by the way. We aren’t discussing random fluctuations of batting average here. we are talking about LARGE differences in how players turn out. Like Ryan Braun being ranked behind Reid Brignac on Kevin Goldstein’s list in 2007, for instance (not picking on KG, we all do it). The trick is to do it less and less as you go along.
Theses things are not random. If you look back and see that ranking as random, just one of those things, or unforseeable, you (anybody, not meaning you) just are not into the science and art of rankuing and evaluating minor league prospects – in my opinion.
By the way, I do not mean at all to cop out on your question, if that is a question, about Cuthbert vs Tavares. My gut tells me that I virtually GURANTEE that Tavares will hit better in the major leagues. Why wouldn’t he? The prudent part of me says that I have not seen Cuthbert and maybe Id better not sell him short. I am absolutely more than 55 percent confident in OT’s skills though.I’ll let you know when I have checked out Cuthbert more. I’ve heard some great things and he hit well as a baby as well.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
groan
“Theses things are not random. If you look back and see that ranking as random, just one of those things, or unforseeable, you (anybody, not meaning you) just are not into the science and art of rankuing and evaluating minor league prospects – in my opinion.”
“My gut tells me that I virtually GURANTEE that Tavares will hit better in the major leagues.”
Congratulations casejud, you just invented the Paula Deen School of Prospect Analysis!
What are you talking about Kuper?
he didn’t ask me for my reasons why i thought Tavares would be better than Cuthbert, so i didn’t give them. Are you objecting to me using the word “gut” in there? i don’t understand your objection.
All I’m sayingh is that when I misranka player or, he doesn’t turn out well or, I overlook one. I don’t turn and say “its unpredictable”. I look at why? im not saying Im any great talent at it either.
Im not sure why this upsets you or, why I am similar to the great Paula Dean. I’m inclined to just take it as a compliment in liew of any sort of reasoned argument, if thats ok Man. :)
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
sure
i completely agree that rankings should be thought of scientifically, and people should go back and figure out why they screwed up a particular ranking and why
but at the end of the day, there is a lot of information not available, in terms of everyone’s lack of understanding for how a player turns out
my analogy would be this. i don’t know if you play poker, but every time you go all-in with pocket aces, against a lower pocket pair pre-flop, you are going to lose 20% of the time. when i end up losing with my pocket aces (as i inevitably will) i don’t go back, analyze, and automatically come up with the conclusion that i screwed up, and should have folded my pocket aces pre-flop. in fact, going all-in pre-flop was the right decision, it just came out badly because of bad luck.
in the grand scheme of things, prospect outcomes are exactly like batting average fluctuations. you can’t simply use one example, like Ryan Braun, to discredit an entire system of analysis, if you think the system of analysis gets you positive results in the long-run (though personally, i don’t really follow Goldstein’s prospect rankings).
if you honestly think you can “virtually guarantee” one prospect ends up better than another prospect, then you should be willing to give 9:1 odds that Taveras will end up better, if not even higher odds. and if we were gambling on prospects’ outcomes, that type of mentality, where you can “virtually guarantee” any given prospect is better than another, is going to cost you a lot in the long run.
i honestly think Taveras will be better than Cuthbert as a hitter. but i’m probably in the 55:45 range, and definitely would not be willing to give odds higher than 60:40. given that confidence level, i find it completely reasonable that someone else (particularly someone else like John who has more information than i do) thinks Cuthbert is the slightly better prospect than Taveras.
by blue bulldog on Oct 21, 2011 3:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Well
It won’t cost me anything If Oscar Tavares turns out to be a couple of aces right? AA
You are right, in the long run but, you asked me about a specifec player.
Interesting analogy tghough BD. I do play poker, a lot and, my prospecting is very influenced by my ideas and play of the game.
I wasn’t using Ryan Braun to disavow any system or, to undermine KG. I said that specifically. I was just referring to mistajkes in general. I don’t “automatically come to the conclusion that I screwed up”. I analyize the hand just like you did with you pocket aces anaology. I also look everywhere I can for MY MISTAKE before I look to the other guy.
I think this is a sound approach in both poker and, prospecting.
I find John as eminently reasonable as almost any mind I have encountered, so there is that. Sometimes we all don’t see something or we err on the side of caution. Its a tricky thing because it is hard to simultaneously – believe something strongly – and say that the other side is reasonable and, really be honest about it. Do you know what I mean?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
As a Pirates fan...
This system makes me sigh…damn.
yes
i follow the Bucs quite a bit but not so much the rest of the league. While I knew the cards had a good top of the farm, I didn’t quite know about the depth.
by BurgherKing on Oct 21, 2011 10:24 AM EDT up reply actions
Cards List
As a Cards fan I personally don’t agree with a few rankings but overall this is a really good representation of the overall system. The one noticeable omission from even consideration is Audry Perez. To me he is the best C prospect in the system with Stanley as a close second. Its just hard to imagine he would at least be a Top 30 prospect in anyone’s rankings of the system.
John – curious on what your thoughts on Perez are and any reasoning he wasn’t considered for your list?
I also have Taveras as my #3 prospect beyond the obvious Top 2…so I believe in him on the higher end of the argument. The hidden gems (and some might not be hidden any longer) of the system for me are Rosie, Hector Hernandez, Adam Riefer and another omission on the list in Nick Longmire. The best I have seen the Cards system in my lifetime. Both star power and extremely good depth. In 2012 you will see many of the upper tier prospects in the system playing in the high minors or bigs which will only enhance the system. I am very happy with the current state of our system.
Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com
Bucs fan here...
I think the Cards and Reds’ systems are ahead of the Bucs right now….where do you think the Cards system stacks up against the rest of the league?
Cards
I personally think the Cards have a Top 8 system in baseball. I haven’t done enough research to know exactly where they would rank but I like them more than Reds and Buccos (though I like where the Buccos system is going). Off the top of my head I would have to say the Cards have a Top 3 system in the NL. The Pads made a TON of moves to improve their system.
Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com
Thanks.
I’m just curious as this is a topic of hot debate on the Buccos site, and I have little to no knowledge of other teams systems other than the big players. I’d say you’re definitely right about the Cards system, with three potential front-line type starters at the top, as well as some solid bats. I can pretty much only say that maybe the Braves and Pads are better off than the Cards now.
Off the top of my head, I’d have to say the Bucs are probably just outside the top 10 right now. I love the risks they’ve taken, although I hope some of the 09 collection of pitchers break out some more. Frankly, I think the 2010 and 2011 drafts were better than the current regime’s first two.
by NastyNate82 on Oct 20, 2011 10:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I personally think the Cards have a Top 8 system in baseball
For sure. Everyone on this list is legit, and the first 16 guys John has here possess legit upside. I haven’t looked at every org in any great depth, but STL and SD are probably the two that surprised me the most.
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 11:58 AM EDT up reply actions
I am definitely not an expert but I think they are probably about 6th
I think Toronto, Texas, Tampa, Atlanta, and Arizona should be ahead of them.
by Matthew Mueller on Oct 21, 2011 12:12 PM EDT up reply actions
San Diego is definitely in the upper tier and has to be in any top 5 list of systems. Within the NL Central, I think the Reds are a hair better as a system (but I don’t think their big league club will threaten the Cards next year like they did last year).
Overtime loss: The new black.
I'm a Reds fan,
and I don’t know if i could make a case for CIN over STL. What’s your thinking?
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 3:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Much deeper in position players
Who are generally more reliable than pitching prospects. Though I think Miller will be a star for the Cards.
Overtime loss: The new black.
If
you’re counting the Louisville hitters, and I suppose most still qualify, I can see it, but STL has more star power pitching and the depth is certainly good enough. I think the Reds’ may have some surprising talent in the low minors, but we won’t know for sure for a year or two.
by blackoutyears on Oct 24, 2011 12:38 AM EDT up reply actions
Ya I was kinda thinking San Diego, KC, and St. Louis are pretty close
so somewhere in the 6-8 range. As for San Diego, maybe they are top five. I just think the Toronto, Tampa, and Texas are on a tier by themselves because they have a ton of depth.
by Matthew Mueller on Oct 21, 2011 3:23 PM EDT up reply actions
Top 5 for certain, probably number one
There are no super-systems this year (unlike K.C. twelve months ago), but I expect StL to have as many or more B+ or better, and straight B or better, as any organization. We’ll see.
Comparing last year’s Royals to this year’s Cardinals, the Royals had 8 guys at B+ or above, and 11 at B or better. St. Louis has just 5 of the former this year, but an identical 11 of the latter—-and last year’s KC system was perhaps the highest-rated in the roughly two decades such rankings have been compiled.
Also, yes, I do indeed rate Oscar Taveras the #2 overall prospect behind just Mike Trout. I’m curious to hear about the DEfensive reports out of Arizona, as Taveras has gunned down a baserunner in each of the last two games….
You'd rank Taveras ahead of Moore?
That’s ummmmm…let’s go with interesting
One guy dominated in low-A ball while the other dominated AA, AAA, and in a limited MLB stint. One guy has solid scouting reports, while other’s are just ridiculous. And you’d rank the former over the latter? Based on what? The team you cheer for?
Lets see
So, when Morre dominated in Low A a couple years ago he wasn’t a great prospect? We should have all have ranked him that high then – some did.
Things happen with pitchers.
Tavares looks like an outstanding, young hitter, defender at a corner spot and will have tremendous power, in my opinion. I’m not ecactly certain where I’d rank Tavares myself (certainly top 10) but, the larger point is that he being ranked a lot lower than he should – in my opinion – by many folks here. There is certainly many more reasons to love than just those pretty cardinals on his future uniform.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"You'd rank Taveras ahead of Moore?"
And, apparently, Bryce Harper. I’d love to see the justification for both…
by blackoutyears on Oct 21, 2011 3:14 PM EDT up reply actions
or Teheran. or Miller. or Machado. or Profar. etc.
one BABIP-driven season can really get people stoked up…
by PrincetonCubs on Oct 22, 2011 4:17 PM EDT up reply actions
to be fair
what good hitting prospect did not have a good BABIP in the minors?
by blue bulldog on Oct 22, 2011 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions
that's fair
but .440 is a tad bit more than “good”
by PrincetonCubs on Oct 22, 2011 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions
Sure
But why does he have to hit anywhere near .380 for you to like him as a prospect? You sound like you don’t like him BECAUSE he hit .380 M’Man!?
He hit for plenty of power, was 19, and was platying in a tough league to hit ibn. Im not sure what you want from the guy. He’d be an outstanding prospect if he hit .322 also, you know?
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
but he's not
Miller or Martinez or Harper or Machado or Profar or…at least not yet.
He’s a legitimate top 30 prospect, I’d say. He’s nowhere near being the #2 prospect in baseball.
But chuckb,
OMGTEHNUMBERZ&SOYOUNG!!!!
by blackoutyears on Oct 31, 2011 10:34 AM EDT up reply actions
So
Not that I should attempt tyo intuit anything from your esperate cry for help but, I’ll give you credit anyways for your “comment”.
So, you are saying that if a ballplayeer is both excellent and youbng, that it is more impiortant that you saw him a few times and didnt like what you have seen? Or it is more important what Keith Law heard from some annonymous scout … maybe?
I am more actually more humble in my opinions. Being very good and, very young comes efore anything that I personally have seen. THEN I look at the player and see If it matches up.
If you cvan’t see something absolutely fundamental to the game about the numbers/ youth combo in minort league position players, I don’t what to tell you Man.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Of course age and performance play a part
They’re tempered by other factors. And humility? You don’t get to completely discount the observations of others when they don’t jibe with your assumptions and claim humility. If you were humble you wouldn’t even be here, because all you do is spout your opinions, and humility would dictate that you keep your opinion to yourself. Humility would dictate that you refrain from telling Al that he doesn’t know what he’s doing, or from disregarding the opinions of pundits or professional evaluators when they disagree with yours. You can do all those things, but you don’t get to claim humility. You really are confused.
by blackoutyears on Nov 2, 2011 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Well, you are here too Frendo
So there is that. You aren’t exactly humble either.
Besides, I didn’t exactly claim to be a humble person just that part of my evaluation of prospects is somewhat humble. I look at age, numbers, and context before I look at my own, more biased eye, and balance the two.
I did NOT say that AL doesn’t know what he is doing! I said I like and enjoy a lot of what he does but, he is wrong about hitters a lot, thats all. I also said that I was sorry if I made him feel bad. I also said “no offense” before I said it and, meant it. As far as insults go artound here, it was hardly that harsh, I don’t think.
A bigger question would be, are you his Daddy or his Brother or, what? How about you mind your own f*ing business eh? Al and I perfectly capable of hashing things out on our own. He’s a big boy and, I have enough respect for yhe guy to do that.
You are even more confused If you think I even care about your characterisization of me. Move on, discuss the topic at hand and, get a life Dude.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"Besides, I didn’t exactly claim to be a humble person just that part of my evaluation of prospects is somewhat humble."
That’s hilarious. I picture you arguing semantics with elementary school children when you post crap like that. My opinions are humble, but I’m not. Comedy gold.
And you’re confused if you think I’m doing because I think you care. You’re a blight, and it amuses me to point it out.
by blackoutyears on Nov 3, 2011 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions
Thats how you feel, thats cool
I don’t exactly think he’s the number 2 prospect but, I like him a lot etter than 30. I don’t know how clear i have to be now every time I say my opuinion.
Your opinion is yours. You are entitled to it and, it is based on good information. I don’t agree.
I think that the combination of being freaking excellebnt and young is more porerfull as an evaluation tool than anything I can see with my two eyes . . . or, franklly, that others can see with thier two eyes.
I then add to this by having seen him swing tghe bat quite a lot. Having heard and read decent scouting r3ports on his arm and defensive potential and, several positive reports about his swing from people I trust. I do not trust Keith Law, sorry. I like him and, enjoy listening to him but, I do not trust his evaluations.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
i have to disagree
just speaking from a Dbacks fan perspective
Bauer and Skaggs will be close to, though lower than, Miller. Bradley and Parker will likely both be around Carlos Martinez. between those four pitchers, i could honestly envision a group of A, A-, A-, B+ (i know there are those on the site who probably wouldn’t give Bauer an A, but i’m basing this off the fact that John had Bauer at #2 on his Big Board prior to the draft).
We probably won’t have another B+ guy, because i don’t think Goldschmidt qualifies anymore as a prospect. But you start getting into diminishing marginal returns after the top few prospects, and i think the value of the top four in the Dbacks system over the top four in the Cards system provides enough to outweigh the somewhat greater depth in the Cards system (i think the Dbacks have their fair share of B/B- prospects as well).
i also think that the Dbacks seem to be a consensus borderline Top 5 farm, and if the Cards don’t have a better farm than the Dbacks, i just don’t really think they can break the Top 5.
by blue bulldog on Oct 21, 2011 2:26 PM EDT up reply actions
ah my bad
forgot about that article
thanks
by blue bulldog on Oct 21, 2011 2:36 PM EDT up reply actions
if you have Taveras over Miller and Martinez
you are probably alone in your thinking. Taveras is a very good prospect but thoe 2 are elite prospects.
Chuck
Where is this openness and, objectivity you were scolding me about earlier. So I can’t disagree a couple of journalists/ non geniuess but, NOBODY can disagree with Miller andf Martinez > Tavares? That is basically what you are saying here right? You notice, that I am asking, not putting words in your mouth.
I think there is a less than crtazy argument for Tavares over martinez, isn’t there. Kevin Goldtein is at least the intellect that Law is and, I heard him with his own mouth call martinez a certain reliever the other day.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
audry
I saw Audry play in AA and I was not impressed with his bat at all. He had a horrible approach. He was considered, but my personal impression of him was negative. If I add him, I have to drop someone else, which is not impossible. I also don’t think Longmire is going to hit much despite his tools.Again, If I put him in, I have to cut someone else.
by John Sickels on Oct 20, 2011 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions
Understood
Everyone has their opinion…was just curious on your thoughts on those 2. Thanks!
Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com
Cox
my padres dealt him for 2 months of a terrible jim edmonds… sigh…
by Noah McKinnie Braun on Oct 21, 2011 1:13 AM EDT reply actions
top 5-6 system in all of minor leagues i believe easily top 10
Isn’t Robert Stock a pitcher now?
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Oct 21, 2011 8:33 PM EDT reply actions
Stock
He showed much improvement in ‘11 as a catcher and hitter. He will stay there at least to start the year…but to me ’12 will be a crucial year for his development. If he doesn’t take another step forward I would think they seriously consider moving him to the mound.
Redbird Dugout
http://www.redbirddugout.com
Isn't it a little misleading to have Lynn and Sanchez on here?
Yes, they’re below the innings threshold for non-rookies next year, but they both logged more than 45 days on the active ML roster.
"That’s what a baseball player does: he uses the glove half of the time." -- Rick Horton regarding the DH.
Service time counts for ROY eligibility
but none of the major prospect lists count it towards prospect eligibility.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
Wow
The Cards are gonna be good for a long time
I was pretty disgusted after the Rockies season, but the rapid demise of the I-95 teams have helped with that.
by RhodeIslandRoxfan on Oct 22, 2011 4:48 PM EDT reply actions
Tally so far....
Grade straight B or better:
StL 11
Tex 9
KC 7
Atl 6
Grade B+ or above:
StL 5
Atl 4
KC 4
Tex 2
At a glance, advantage St. Louis in both elites and high-quality depth.
I’m glad Christian Yelich’s name was raised—-I’m very high on the kid, like top 20-25 overall, maybe even top 15 based on his terrific in-season improvement. He’s not quite at the Taveras level, what with Taveras out-batting him this year in a tougher hitter’s league, and being several months younger…but I see Yelich as maybe the next Shawn Green, and that’s a heckuva player.
Taveras’ power has been a source of some very healthy discussion around these parts, so I thought I’d add a little tidbit. In the DSL back in ‘09, Taveras’ isolated slugging was 53% above the league. In 2010, his ISO was 62% greater than the Appy League average. And finally, this year his ISO was 65% above the MWL average.
In all three leagues, of course, Taveras was one of the youngest 3 or 4 hitters (actually the very youngest by six months in the Appy). Gotta like that. ;)
Oh, and also, there was an interesting question posed to Keith Law in his most recent chat.
Q: What’s more impressive for a prospect, taking a 90+ heater out the opposite way, or turning on a 90 for a homer?
Law: Opposite field.
With nearly 50% of Taveras’ taters having gone out the other way (8 of 18 in his roughly 600 American AB’s), it looks like a strong marker for success to me—-and implicitly to KLaw as well.
Interesting
On Kevin Golstein’s podcast he said he spojke to a scout who told him that Tavares’s swuing reminded him of BRYCE HARPERS! If that isn’t an endorsement of power potential, i don’t know what is?
Nobody here, who wants to be rerserved, absurdedly criticqal, or whatever they are about Tavares’s potential ever wants to directly adress that quote . . . and i dont even like third-person scoutspeak bullshit!
Yelich reminds me more of James Loney myself but, thats just me. Tavares reminds me of the next Tony Olivo or, something like that. A fantastic, young hitter and, a good athlete and defender as well in time.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Tony Oliva, I should say :)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/o/olivato01.shtml
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
Right,
because seizing on the quote that agrees with you while ignoring those that don’t is different than what you’re doing. Considering Bryce Harper has a max effort swing that generated a lot of questions even coming out of Southern Nevada, the quote doesn’t even really contradict what Law and Grey are saying. Not that you probably know enough about the book on Harper as an amateur to even comprehend what I’m talking about.
by blackoutyears on Nov 2, 2011 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Wrong
What exactly are you saying about Bryce Harper’s swing? That is the question at hand. Exactly what “secret, special, knowledge” of Harper do you have that you think I don’t have? I have had video of his swing shown to me for years now. There were also so many “questions” about his swing that he went #1 overall. I don’t know exactly what you are talking about there, at all.
My point is that there are scouts who LOVE Tavares’s swing and, there are ones who may NOT love his swing. It seems to me that both the people outside of baseball that like the kid’s future a lot and, the ones who don’t, are just picking out the reports they like and running with them.
Are you acting like there are still questions about how Harper’s swing will translate to the major leagues? There are few people questioning that but, unlike you, I would let you express that opinion about him without saying you are “ignoring professional evaluators”.
I "seized on " the scouts conmp of the two swings because it is perfectly fair, within the argument, to do so. You can look at that scouts comp as supporting the reservations about Tavares’ swing – go ahead. I can also look at the scouts comparison as a highly complimentary endorsement of Tavares’ power potential, and his swing,This from a very reputable source, I would think. It’s just a solid piece of evidence, thats all.
Again, I have to be honest. I don’t give a shit what Keith Law or Jason Grey said anyways. My love of Oscar Tavares is because of his performance first, then his youth, then from seeing that beautiful swing that there should be z e r o questions about, combined with some scouting reports that show he can be a pretty good outfielder too.
I don’t even have nearly as much of a problem with any scoutinbg report I’ve read or, media scouting report than I do the nit-picky way some folks have looked at him here – his makeup?, some injuries?, his groundball percentage?, the park he played in?. Just to be clear. No offense to anybody but, I think all of those arguments are mostly going to turn out to be garbage, predictively. We’ll see though. I could be wrong.
Also, you missed the point anyways. We weren’t even discussing Law and Grey’s opinions here. This is a new conversation. This is more about the separate debate about Tavares’ power potential than Grey and Laws opinion of his swing.
" I too love everthing that flows: rivers, sewers, lava, blood, bile, words, sentences . ." - Henry Miller
"Also, you missed the point anyways.'
No. You’re talking about people choosing to ignore this scout’s opinion because it ostensibly disagrees with theirs, when you’ve been doing the same thing every time an opinion on Taveras disagrees with yours. How is the scout Goldstein quotes any more “solid” a piece of evidence than those evaluators you keep dismissing?
l’ll take it that I’m correct that you know next to nothing about Harper as an amateur prospect. And I’m supposed to take your opinion seriously when you’re clearly far less grounded in the players you discuss than the people you argue with? I guess whatever happened before you noticed a player doesn’t count. You live in a bubble.
by blackoutyears on Nov 3, 2011 5:47 PM EDT up reply actions
Do you think Alan Ahmady could still be a sleeper?
Glad to see Valera make your “others” list – after seeing him in Johnson City I think he could go far.
"Nothing Motte does is quiet. It's mostly screamy and intense." - sheckiezx
"I'm a graduate of the Mike Shannon School of Diction" - Al Hrabosky
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
