Prospect Vs. Prospect: Trevor Plouffe vs. Chris Nelson

by John Sickels on Feb 1, 2006 10:30 AM EST in News

Trevor Plouffe was drafted in the first round by the Minnesota Twins in 2004, 20th overall, a high school shortstop from California. He had a rather disappointing season in the Midwest League in 2005, hitting just .223/.300/.345 for Beloit. He did hit 13 homers and post a decent 50/78/466 BB/K/AB ratio, and scouts were impressed with his defense and his attitude. Sabermetrically, he may have been "hit-unlucky," but at times (especially early in the season) he appeared legitimately overmatched.

Chris Nelson was drafted in the first round by the Colorado Rockies in 2004, ninth overall, a high school shortstop from Georgia. Like Plouffe, he had a disappointing season, hitting just .241/.304/.330 for Asheville in the South Atlantic League. Injuries were a major factor: he was hampered by hamstring and groin trouble for more than half the season, and was never 100% healthy. But even so, his production was certainly less than expected, with plate discipline a major problem. His BB/K/AB was 25/88/315, too many strikeouts with not enough walks.

So, here's the question. Right now, who is the better prospect, Nelson or Plouffe? Plouffe is younger (born June 1986 compared to September 1985). Plouffe is a very good athlete in his own right, but Nelson has better raw tools according to scouts. Plouffe has better strike zone judgment and is more polished defensively, but Nelson has a higher upside on both offense and defense according to scouts. Plouffe was healthy in '05 and posted bad numbers; Nelson at least had the excuse of being injured.

Who would you rather have?

Tweet Comment 53 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Nelson

And its not even especially close.
Both have had their struggles but nothing that makes me sure think either are sure busts and Nelsons tools are, by all accounts, FAAAR superior.

by nms on Feb 1, 2006 10:55 AM EST reply actions

OOPS

"...but nothing that makes me sure think either are ..."

that sure shouldnt be in there

by nms on Feb 1, 2006 10:55 AM EST up reply actions

Tools

Nelson - assuming the scouts are correct about his upside and tools. At that age you can't be too concerned with how polished a player is, they have lots of time to develop their skills. Both of them have a lot of baseball to play before they hit the major leagues. The kid with the tools is more likely to have major league skills when they get to that point.

by TT @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 10:56 AM EST reply actions

Data insufficient at this point.

I'd probably go with Nelson, but either one still has just as much chance of becoming a star, or a journeyman, or flaming out completely.

by Megawatt @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 11:21 AM EST reply actions

Plouffe

Plouffe had never lived in such cold weather as they have in Beloit in April, let alone had to play baseball in it. After his disasterous first month, he hit pretty well.

As for tools, these are tough to judge, without the specific tools in mind. But I would say if Plouffe is more than a year younger and already a better fielding shortstop, it seems his defensive tools are there: first step, etc. I've heard he tended to let the ball play him which resulted in his high error totals. But that can be corrected. And it can't be power because Plouffe showed very good power numbers for a middle infielder, again after the horrible start. And it can't be arm, because he was consistently clocked aound 93 mph when he pitched in high school. In fact, some teams passed on him in the draft because there was some question as to whether he was a pitcher or a shortstop (similar to Paul Kelly). And, as you said, it's not batting eye. So that leaves speed, and I'll grant you that Plouffe is no Alexi Cassilla in that regard. But if he's just above average in one tool, but has the other four, and he's polished for his age, I'd tend to favor him in a comparison.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 1, 2006 12:15 PM EST reply actions

disagree

You seem to be basing your arguments on the premise that, not that Nelson isn't better, but that somehow NOBODY can be better. Examples:

"And it can't be power because Plouffe showed very good power numbers for a middle infielder, again after the horrible start."

If Trevor Plouffe shows good power numbers for a middle infielder, theoretically, Chris Nelson could be showing great power at the same time.

"And it can't be arm, because he was consistently clocked aound 93 mph when he pitched in high school."

Again, if Nelson could have theoretically been clocked at 98 in high school. Just because plouffe is clocked at 93, doesn't mean there is no better.

Not saying Nelson is better (even though i think he is), but the way you are putting your arguments are incorrect, IMO.

A wise man once said: "There is no down or up, left or right. There is only center"

by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 12:38 PM EST up reply actions

Tools

Well, I hate talking about tools because we know nothing about them, except what we can gleen from stats. What we know is that Plouffe had much better power than Nelson last year besed on the numbers. That doesn't mean Nelson won't develop more power than Plouffe based on things like body type, etc. (Though Plouffe is taller and bigger framed.) But, given what we have to go on (outside of the second-hand words of an unknown number of scouts), Plouffe has better power. And if Nelson was throwing 98 in high school, I doubt they would have drafted him as a short stop. If Plouffe threw 94, he likely would have been drafted as a pitcher. As it was, some teams projected him as a pitcher. Perhaps Nelson threw 93 and was drafted as a shortstop, but that only says he has the same arm strength as Plouffe, not better.

Your arguments are not better than mine if they're based on some rumors that a scout or two or four says that Nelson has better tools.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 1, 2006 12:55 PM EST up reply actions

to let you kno

Nelson missed much of his senior year because he had TJ surgery....after throwing a 100-mph fastball!!!....so that says about his arm strength. Why wasnt he drafted as a pitcher? Because of his bat and his surgery.

Nelson is by far the superior prospect, and will finally be healthy this year, much like he was at Casper.

by bballfanlvnv on Feb 1, 2006 3:07 PM EST up reply actions

we'll see

by the way, what's your knock on Plouffe?

by Azteca on Feb 1, 2006 3:18 PM EST up reply actions

I did some checking

And BA ranks Nelson as the most atheletic propsect in the Rockies' system and also has the best arm in the system (among position players). So apparently he does have big-time tools.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 1, 2006 4:13 PM EST up reply actions

missing the point

i don't necessarily agree/disagree. I was pointing out that the way you are phrasing your arguments are just wrong.

I'm not arguing who has better tools and such. You were arguing for Plouffe, and in the quotes i quoted you were arguing wrong. Just pointing something else out, nothign to do with who is a better player.

A wise man once said: "There is no down or up, left or right. There is only center"

by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 3:54 PM EST up reply actions

weather

The weather in Beloit this past April was awesome. We even had highs in the 80's. With not many cold days mixed in.

His slow start had nothing to do with the weather. I guess I should have said, shouldn't have had anything to do with weather. If he can't hit in the cold of this april then he is in trouble.

4/7 0 - 3 temp high 69
4/8 0 - 4 temp high 67
4/9 0 - 4 temp high 71
4/10 1 - 4 temp high 81

I'm not goign to go on but them temps are plenty warm. April stayed warm to. Even had a couple record highs.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 2:43 PM EST up reply actions

Injury

Depends on how injury prone Nelson is going to be. At this point I guess it makes sense to give Nelson the benefit of the doubt, but if it happens again this year he could be another Snelling or Aubrey. Staying healthy is both a tool and a skill.

by LindInMoskva on Feb 1, 2006 12:27 PM EST reply actions

Plouffe

Judging strictly by the limited data we have on both kids, my pick would be Plouffe in a heartbeat. Much better plate discipline, slightly more raw power, no injuries (that I know of), nearly a year younger.
In addition to the numbers, he apparently has a good head on his shoulders (per the scouts).

by SmokeyJoeWood on Feb 1, 2006 2:08 PM EST reply actions

my thoughts

I'll start with mr. nelson. Imo he is a tough prospect to breakdown at this point. We have limited data from 04 and tainted data from 05. I think you throw out all of 05 except for k/bb ratio.The guy didn't have his legs under him all year and that makes it tough to judge power, d, running, and any other skill that takes movement. But if he was playing on hobbled legs I would like to see his bb/k ratio improving. That didn't happen and that bothers me.

Why did his k/bb ratio not improve is the main question? Was he trying to do to much? Did he not adjust his game? Is he freaking blind? (ok i'm getting off track) 06 will answer these questions and make him easier to judge. Untill then I have to look at 05 numbers and think he has a chance to be very good.

Trevor is a great sleeper at ss. He played here in beloit last year so I had a chance to see him up close. We went to the same small bar so i have talked to him a few times as well.

First off Trevor is a very cool guy, and like smokey said has a good head on his shoulders. (lets not talk about him being to young to be drinking) A lot of the players would go out after the game and he was always the most friendly. This tells me that he is a very coachable kid, and that is huge.

His glove work at SS was sick. He could go deep in the whole better then anyone I seen in the past 3 years. His arm is not super, but more then enough to get the job done.

His bat did come on late, but I want to see more. I don't think he has the tools, but i think he will put in the work to improve.

The upside of the two isn;t even close. Trevor i see as a middle infield backup. Nelson I could see starting at ss, 2nt, or cf. Trevor's chances of making it are better, but if i had to pick I go with the tools.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 3:36 PM EST reply actions

Confusing

If Plouffe is coachable, a good defensive player, and "a great sleeper", why do you think he's just a middle infield backup?

by mrkupe on Feb 1, 2006 4:00 PM EST up reply actions

does this help

Being coachable only gets you so far. Ever see the movie Rudy? lol

His D will be good enough to play at the highest level. I have no doubts about that. The only question is his bat. Since he is not a burner he will need to hit to be a starter, if he doesn't hit he will be a decent bench player because of his D.

When I called him a great sleeper I should of used a word besides great. I don't know the right word to use. I don't ever see him being great. If he works hard and everything goes right he could be an average big league SS. Nothing more then that.

There is just something you see in certain players. I see it in him. I can;t put it in words, but he has it. If that makes any sense.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 7:15 PM EST up reply actions

The same bar?

Uh-oh. Young for his league AND for his bar.

by tmelander on Feb 3, 2006 7:12 PM EST up reply actions

Um, I'm confused about this comparison

are we talking about Chris Nelson the Outfielder who's stats you've listed?:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/N/christopher-nelson.shtml

Or Chris Nelson the SS who had a .942OPS in 147 at bats in the Pioneer League for Colorado?

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/N/chris-nelson-4.shtml

If it's the first, Plouffe is the better prospect as it appears he'll stay at SS, where Nelson is allready listed in the OF. The second is uncertain given just one very, very good short season played in the pioneer league in a home stadium over 5,000ft in elevation.

by steve johnson on Feb 1, 2006 3:46 PM EST reply actions

They're the same guy

The first one is Nelson' stats from 2005. The other are his stats from 2004.

by Sulla on Feb 1, 2006 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

Those are both the same player

The Cube messed it all up. The first one is Chris Nelson's 2005 stats, with him listed as an outfielder for some reason. The second is Chris Nelson in 2004.

A wise man once said: "There is no down or up, left or right. There is only center"

by ohad @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

Um

That's a flub over at the Cube (and an odd one, since I looked up Chris Nelson's stats about a week ago and everything was in order).

Chris Nelson the SS had a .942 OPS in the Pioneer League in 2004. That line that John posted was Chris Nelson's 2005 line in the Sally League.

by mrkupe on Feb 1, 2006 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

thanks for the clarification

good work gentleman.

by steve johnson on Feb 1, 2006 4:02 PM EST reply actions

Plouffe

Those 9 months difference in age are a big item. The Midwest League is also tougher than the Sally League, with more competition from seasoned college pitchers.

I am probably more leery of scout's descriptions of defensive "potential" in a middle infielder than of any other tool evaluation. A shortstop with a good arm, mobility and instincts but who lacks "flash" will often be undervalued.

It is a close call, though. By all accounts, Nelson should be the better hitter, and may hit well enough that he can be moved if his defence does not develop as expected.

by Mike Green on Feb 1, 2006 4:08 PM EST reply actions

Midwest tougher?

I'd like to believe it, but I'm not sure I can, given that every team has one A ball team (and then an A+), and that team is either in the MWL or the Sally. That is, they're the same rung down on the ladder.

Not sure how you can say the Midwest is tougher, since I can't see why there are more college pitchers. Now, it could be that the teams with Sally connections happen to be the teams that draft mostly HS players, I don't know, but even so, those HS players play their first three or four years in the low rookie, the high rookie, and then the low A (and so the players would be either sophs or juniors had they gone to college).

Ugh, the best way to look at it is that both leagues are four steps down from the majors, and I can't see how they could possibly be inherently different.

by tmelander on Feb 3, 2006 7:22 PM EST up reply actions

Thoughts

Nelson's 2004 line was impressive, but it masked his need to improve his contact rate. Injury or not, his 2005 line resembled his 2004 line in a lot of ways; I don't know if he was simply lucky one year and unlucky the other, but it's very concerning when a guy who has "plus bat speed" listed among his best attributes strikes out more than once a game in two separate campaigns against the lowest levels of pro competition.

Plouffe's line looks pretty decent with the exception of BA, and my guess is that as he gets a little older he'll grow increasingly capable in that respect. He already shows good trends that if maintained, should give him a solid chance of developing into a very respectable major leaguer. The Twins might have to take it slow with him for the next season or two, but I suspect a major breakthrough will occur for him at some point.

I'd take Plouffe. I love Nelson's potential, but he's still an incredibly raw player. The biggest issue I have with Plouffe is that he was probably pushed into full season ball several months too early, and that's obviously not something I could hold against him.

by mrkupe on Feb 1, 2006 4:32 PM EST reply actions

they did mention

on BA that some of Nelson's BB:K ratio had to do with him trying to over compensate for his injury. He was chasing pitches he normally wouldnt, trying to make something happen.

He did hit good in the month of August, when he was finally starting to heat up a little.

This year I think you will see the real Nelson, a guy that will justify his draft selection. JMO

by bballfanlvnv on Feb 1, 2006 8:36 PM EST reply actions

Ah

But how does that account for his 1+ K/game in Rookie ball the previous year?

I can understand how it partially accounts for the drop in his walkrate, but as far as strikeout rate I'm inclined to think that he's got some serious work to do.

He's the type of guy who BA is obviously going to swoon over, to be sure. Great bat speed, outstanding athlete and reflexes that should translate into good defensive skills. I like a lot of what he brings to the table as well, but if he's having strikeout issues at the lowest levels of pro ball, he's going to need a major breakthrough at some point to even be a successful Double A player.

by mrkupe on Feb 1, 2006 8:54 PM EST up reply actions

subject

"He's the type of guy who BA is obviously going to swoon over, to be sure. "

Ya they swooned him almost out of the Rockies top ten. Way to over value tools BA. They are so clueless.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 1, 2006 11:20 PM EST up reply actions

And what they did put him at last year?

Twenty . . .six. Not in the Rockies' system, obviously, but twenty-sixth overall!

They've certainly overrated him in the past. I see no reason why they won't do so in the future once they have any sort of statistical backing.

by mrkupe on Feb 2, 2006 12:46 AM EST up reply actions

i see

So if they have the stats to back it what is the problem?

Have you never over valued a prospect?

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 2, 2006 10:27 AM EST up reply actions

LOL!!!!

It has become a lifelong mission to convince the world of Chris Nelson's worth.

by HuskerBob on Feb 2, 2006 2:24 PM EST up reply actions

I don't think so

me? I think I was pretty honest about Mr Nelson. Did you read my post? I didn't have to much nice to say about him.

I just don't understand why people want to slam BA all the time. They are clearly the number one source for prospect info. They have more contacts then anyone else. Everyone reads them, but there is a group of people that want to talk shit about them. You included Mr. Husky. :) I don't think it is right. They do a good job.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 2, 2006 2:38 PM EST up reply actions

BA

Here's a John Sickels interview over at Batter's Box (almost exactly one-year-old):

http://www.battersbox.ca/article.php?story=20050204093934999

Here's an excerpt:

"BB: Baseball is in the middle of a stats based versus scouting debate. You state you use both approaches in your evaluations. Do you consider yourself to be in the middle, or do you lean more to one side than the other?

JS: I lean more to the statistical side. If "pure stats" was a 1 and "pure scouting" was a 10 on a 1-10 scale, I'd probably be about a 4. Baseball Prospectus would probably be a 2.5, while Baseball America would probably be about a 6. Ten years ago, Baseball America would have been something like a 9."

I think I'd agree with what John said here, and I think that's a big reason you'll sometimes see some anti-BA sentiment in the blogosphere (since blogosphere baseball fans predominantly are biased towards statistical analysis). Some simply can't shake the stereotype that BA analysis only looks at tools (no longer really true).

by jianfu on Feb 2, 2006 3:45 PM EST up reply actions

Certainly!

Nobody can be perfect 100 percent of the time (or close to it). About the most you can hope for is that the failure stories stem out of "unforeseeable circumstances" (sudden unexplainable statistical dropoff, injury).

Nelson isn't really one of those cases. Over a 550 AB season this year, he would've K'd 148 times. In that 2004 season, given 550 ABs, he would've K'd 157 times. If you want to say that he showed improvement then be my guest, but I think we're seeing a trend here, and it's not a good one.

by mrkupe on Feb 2, 2006 5:57 PM EST up reply actions

k rate

I searched for the word improvment in this diary. You are the only one that used that word. I'm not sure if you were talking to me or not, if not disregard my post.

His K's are a major issue. With his injuries I would of been cool with a big drop in power, but like I said in my first post the k/bb ratio needed to improve. Hopefully he worked his ass off this winter to get his legs right and shows up ready to play this year. If not he is headed towards bust land!

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 2, 2006 6:09 PM EST up reply actions

Health and K rates

Somewhere on this thread a poster attributed his K rate to being injured. I think that's a stretch. Guys who don't make a lot of contact don't improve their contact rates when they're healthy. And his contact rates have been consistently poor healthy or no.

A while ago, John posted a poll about what we look for in low-level position player prospects. The number one of the metric I look for at Low A ball is contact. Gangly tall players can develop power as they fill out. Hackers can sometimes develop better batting eyes. But guys who have trouble consistently making contact rarely improve on that. To me that's the closest thing to a God-given skill for a hitter. If you don't have it, you're unlikely to develop it.

It reminds me of BJ Garbe, whom BA highly touted for all his tools. But he just never learned to see the ball well, especially at night. For that reason, he never had the hand-eye coordination needed to make solid contact. Consequently, he became one of the biggest busts in Twins history (slightly behind Adam Johnson).

Suffice it to say, Nelson's K rates are a giant red flag.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 3, 2006 12:20 PM EST up reply actions

Garbe v Jones re K's

BJ Garbe at age 20 Fort Myers 463 AB 51 BB 86K
Jacque Jones at age 22 Fort Myers 539 AB 33 BB 110K

I don't think those numbers tell you much. The difference between those two wasn't K's or BB's, it was what happened when they did make contact.

by TT @ Minor League Ball on Feb 3, 2006 4:54 PM EST up reply actions

K numbers

Well neither of these hitters have seriously high K numbers like the 150 that Nelson projects to in two consecutive years.

And perhaps I wasn't clear. I wasn't referring to K rates in particular but to contact. if your K rate projects to 150 over a full season, you have contact issues. And contact issues were said to be the problem with Garbe despite his tools. Poor contact might not have manifested itself in his K rate (though it usually does). I was going on reports from Twins scouts after he was traded for Borders near the end of 2004. They said he never really adapted to night baseball, so he didn't make enough contact.

Also, as I suspected, Garbe's K rates got a lot worse in the Eastern League, when pitchers tend to have better control. He struck out 60 times against only 16 walks in 225 ABs (241 PAs) in 2003. And he imporved somewhat in 2004, striking out 69 times against 39 walks in 374 at bats in 2004.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 3, 2006 5:32 PM EST up reply actions

Contact

I wasn't referring to K rates in particular but to contact. if your K rate projects to 150 over a full season, you have contact issues.

Not necessarily. Taking pitches can lead to K's as well as walks. In a player at that stage of development there are any number of correctable flaws that can lead to strikeouts. Obviously striking out a lot isn't a good sign, but at low A ball it isn't a fatal flaw either.

by TT @ Minor League Ball on Feb 5, 2006 12:47 PM EST up reply actions

Exactly

and that's why Jacque Jones is the worst player in the history of the major league.

Um, too much hyperbole?

by tmelander on Feb 3, 2006 7:27 PM EST up reply actions

Slightly

He never made enough contact, that's for sure. Though TT would count his career a success despite his marginal high A numbers because most guys who put up numbers like that at high A never make it to the majors, let alone put together a nine-year career (assuming the Cubs keep him for the length of his contract). An interesting comparison is Romero, actually. But that's on another thread.

cmathewson

by cmathewson on Feb 4, 2006 12:10 PM EST up reply actions

Garbe Jones Romero

because most guys who put up numbers like that at high A never make it to the majors

Most guys who put up numbers of any kind at high A ball never make it to the majors. Its not clear to me that K's are a bigger red flag than any other, especially when you are talking about players at defensive positions.

TT would count his career a success

Are you seriously suggesting that Jacque Jones was not a successful prospect?

An interesting comparison is Romero, actually. But that's on another thread.

And interesting comparison to Garbe? Maybe. But not to Jones. Jones hit 21 home runs with .508 SLG at New Britain and he had center field range.

by TT @ Minor League Ball on Feb 5, 2006 12:39 PM EST up reply actions

Nelson

i grew up right around him and seen him play before so im biased. That kid is effin talented

by yacck23 on Feb 1, 2006 10:41 PM EST reply actions

re

Well, performances are equally weak, so I guess the tiebreaker is tools, and Nelson, by all accounts, has the big edge there.

I am a bit partial to Plouffe though, since he was supposed to be the high school kid the A's were willing to take in the first round.

by bootsy on Feb 2, 2006 10:54 AM EST reply actions

Personally

I don't think either one is going to develop into anything, but if I had to choose... I'll go with "(c) Carl Pavano"

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 2, 2006 5:10 PM EST reply actions

really

Didn't you once trade Joe Mauer for Mike Redmond? We don't care what you think.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 2, 2006 5:30 PM EST up reply actions

Yup

but I never cried about it.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Feb 2, 2006 5:40 PM EST up reply actions

lol

You should of.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 2, 2006 6:03 PM EST up reply actions

Shouldn't

this dig be directed at me? I'm the one who was desperate to get rid of Suck Pavano.

by Brett Perryman on Feb 3, 2006 2:37 PM EST up reply actions

lol

Bren isn't one to let facts get in the way when he wants to trash someone. No one seems to remember either that it was you that sent the email defending Mr. Nelson.

The case I made was Pavano sucked and would never live up to the numbers he had in 04. I also said he wouldn't stay healthy after he threw so many innings. Dude is made of glass. Of course then he goes out and hurts his back in spring training.

Batters crushed Mr. Pavano when healthy to the tune of .315/.354/.513. Sad part is mini man would still want him.

by Josh @ Minor League Ball on Feb 3, 2006 4:15 PM EST reply actions

Plouffe

Because I'm a Twins fan, damn it, and because I want to give him some votes before Ryan's organization ruins him.

Actually, they might not ruin him, since he's already struggling. I think he'll be pretty decent, but there is some kink in his swing that was exposed in rookie ball, and the Twins have decided to let him continue for now without correcting it. Not sure anymore what it was.

by tmelander on Feb 3, 2006 7:32 PM EST reply actions

another vote for Plouffe

its very close ... Nelson's upside is off the charts, but his plate discipline is a major worry .. im not too worried about Plouffe reaching his ceiling, even thought its lower, he's still gonna be a real good player..

by ufo on Feb 4, 2006 8:21 AM EST reply actions