Ellsbury

by John Sickels on Dec 13, 2007 4:21 PM EST in News Comment 83 comments

Jacoby Ellsbury, OF, Boston Red Sox
Bats: L Throws: L HT: 6-1 WT: 185 DOB: September 11, 1983

Those of you who have been reading my work for awhile know that I maintain a healthy skepticism about players who rely mostly on their speed, but I really love Jacoby Ellsbury. He uses his speed extremely well, and combines it with solid strike zone judgment and contact hitting. He won't hit many homers, but he is hardly punchless, I think we will gradually see his doubles and triples totals increase. He's going to be a very good to excellent leadoff hitter, and (I believe) a consistent .300+ guy. I also like his defensive skills in center field. He's ready now, and will be a leading contender for Rookie of the Year. Grade A-, a grade which may strike some people as a notch too high, but I am extremely confident in him.

So, guys. Here is your chance. Tell me why I should change Ellsbury to a B+, or why I should leave him at A-.

0 recs | Comment 83 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

To me

Prospecting is as much about predicting who will have an impact at the MLB level as much as it is about predicting stars. And, to me, Ellsbury seems as good of bet as anyone to make an impact at the MLB level. Personally, I think grade A should be reserved for potential superstars but I have no problem with A- going to a very likely above-average MLB player. Give him the A-...

by Dfarth on Dec 13, 2007 4:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

vs Michael Bourn

Now I believe Ellsbury is a better hitter than Bourn and should have a higher grade, but if Bourn is a B- player, is Ellsbury really a full grade above him? Ellsbury has much better contact skills and should have slightly better power (though I'm not sold Ellsbury will ever slg higher than .430), but in terms of speed, patience and defense, Bourn exceeds.

I think the difference between the 2 is 2 half grades. The B- for Bourn is fine, but Ellsbury should be a B+. Or if you really think Ellsbury is an A- prospect, then Bourn needs to rise to at least a full B.

The Dodgers won't win a playoff series until the Cool-a-Coo returns.

by mckeeno on Dec 13, 2007 4:19 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Lillibridge

Is another good comp. I don't see how he's a B and Jacoby is an A-.

Ellsbury is the definition of a low-ceiling B+ to me.

by dkdc on Dec 13, 2007 4:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Agreed with the Lillibridge comps too. I realize that John does not grade comparatively...but you need to be consistent.

Todd Frazier for President

by FrazierFan on Dec 13, 2007 4:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bourne

should be a full B.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bourn vs. Ellsbury

I agree that the difference is two half grades, but think Bourn should be a "B".

by BaseballBrain on Dec 13, 2007 4:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Wait a sec...

"...but in terms of speed, patience and defense, Bourn exceeds."

How certain are you that speed and defense go in Bourne's favor, anyway? Im not sold. If there is a difference between the two on speed and defense it is slight... and Im not sure its in Bourne's favor, in any case.

Bourn is slightly more patient, but we're talking like a 9-10% walk rate against a 7-8%. Ellsbury's contact skills certainly surpass that difference.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i agree...

by doublestix on Dec 13, 2007 4:41 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A-

I say leave it at an A-.

He may not be a power hitter, but he isn't supposed to be one. He is going to be a speedy player who gets on base and also plays great defense. That's his job, so who cares if he never slugs over 430?

Also, in comparison to Bourn... I'd much rather have Ellsbury because I think he can be a fulltime player. Bourn has a history of struggling against LHP. He did it in the minors, and he did it in the majors. Ellsbury has always hit LHP better than RHP, but the splits weren't as extreme. For that fact alone, I think Ellsbury deserve to be a full grade above Bourn... he is less likely to end up as half a platoon.

"My mom always taught me it's better to laugh at yourself than to laugh at others. She was so wrong. ;)" -Pedrophile

by Boxkutter on Dec 13, 2007 4:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury should stay at A-

Despite my offer of 20 bucks if you downgraded him to try to sway Bill Smith.

Is he only a three tool player? Maybe. But those tools are all plus or plus plus. Does he have the potential ceiling of some of the A rating guys? Maybe not, but he is a virtual lock to be a very good MLB player. Also, he has raked at every stop. Look at his minor league resume. What else can a guy do to get an A-?

There are some people here who wouldnt have given Ichiro an A-.

Another telling sign is the way Ellsbury has been coveted by other GMs.

The guy is a clear A-. Good - perhaps not great upside, impressive track record. Sure thing to be a good major leaguer. Probably makes a few all star appearances. That's an A-.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 4:43 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Do I think too highly of Ellsbury???

when I see him and his numbers, and think Tim Raines. He might not have the other-worldly speed that Rock did coming up in the late 70's and early 80's, but his plate approach strikes me as remarkable similar when I look at the numbers.

by Terry Ryan Jr on Dec 13, 2007 4:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A-

Ellsbury is a likely gold glove centerfielder. He's hit consistently since he was drafted. He's fast as hell (see: scoring from second on a wild pitch). He's got solid plate discipline, very good contact skills, and isn't punchless (each of his pro homeruns were hit to right in Fenway, which is a deep right field). Yeah, he didn't crush the ball in a couple months at Pawtucket, but he talked about how the coaching staff helped him fix his swing so that he could drive more with his legs and hit for more power. According to Ellsbury, this led to him hitting the ball with more authority both at the end of his Pawtucket stint and in the bigs. He may not have the ceiling to be an "A" but his floor is way too high to be a "B+".

by BLumbergh on Dec 13, 2007 4:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree to an extent

Tim Raines to me is the most unappreciated player of his generation toiling away his peak in Montreal. And his peak years of 85-87 are amazing. You take those years away and he was a .300 hitter with an on-base of about .370 and a slugging percentage around .420. I am looking at the gap power/discipline/speed combo that Ellsbury has and to me it compares very favorably to those pre and postpeak years that were still all-star caliber for "the rock"

by Terry Ryan Jr on Dec 13, 2007 4:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Numbers

I see someone who if he doesnt develop power is going to be a .310/.360/.420 type player. Which is valuable, but not worthy of an A-.

by Kanst42 on Dec 14, 2007 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I thought Butler too

by Sox Puppet on Dec 13, 2007 5:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

Let's also remember when comparing players of today to players of the 1980's was a drastically different offensive era. The league slugging average today is 30-40 points above most seasons from the 1980s. So it may seem Ellsbury is capable of coming close to some of the Raines's raw slugging production - the Rock likely would have a much higher slugging during his peak if he played in today's offensive context.

by McLovin on Dec 13, 2007 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

age

Entering his age-24 season, Raines had 1595 AB already (and 246 SB and 1 season with 97 BB's). Ellsbury has 116 AB (and 9 SB and 8 BB's).

by BobbyMac on Dec 14, 2007 12:32 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury

I agree that I think he'll add doubles and triples but I think that will not be a reflection of added power, but of a refined approach and great speed.

I am skeptical of his ability to hit for power for obvious reasons. But, with his ability to make contact and speed, I think he can fill a different role. A lot is made of his tremendous stretch in Double-A and with Boston, both of which were fueled by incredible streaks. In a mere 83 Double-A PAs, he posted a BABIP of a whopping .500 while seeing his MLB BABIP at .388.

With all that being said, I think a grade of A- is alright. His offensive skills are, in my estimation, dwarfed by his defensive skills. His range is top-notch and his instincts are very good as well. His speed of course comes into play as well. His arm strength isn't great, but it is certainly adequate and his accuracy is fairly good. All of this makes him a solid prospect with some Major League skills already and that is worth a lot to me. When you look at a "B-level" prospect, there is usually something that sticks out and says: This is what will keep so-and-so from becoming a full-time big leaguer. But when you look at Ellsbury, nothing is keeping him from being a full-time player. His defense will keep him in that role even if his offensive contribution is limited to a .300 average with a .720 OPS and speed.

www.moundtalk.com Scouting Reports, Prospects and more...

by kschellenger on Dec 13, 2007 4:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

But...

He'll always be a high BABIP guy b/c of his tremendous speed.

I mean, yes, of course .500 BABIP was a fluke... and I dont expect him to repeat it... and I also doubt he'll hit .455 again.

Still, those things happened b/c of his skills, not entirely lucky. He will always hit for a sick average and have eye popping BABIPs(BAsBsIP?) b/c of his speed and b/c he hits the ball fairly hard.

While those AA and MLB numbers were skewed they werent as far off as many think and its better to view them as indicating premium skills.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

RE: But...

Yes, he will always have a higher BABIP than a comparable player with less speed, however, replicating a .500 and .388 BABIP with any consistency over a full season (and against Major League defenders) isn't something I would deem anywhere near likely.

I won't debate the merit of luck here, but it should suffice to say that the stints in question represent the high side of an expected range of production for Ellsbury.

The point is to be weary of roughly 200 plate appearances that, in terms of slugging, BABIP and batting average are severely out of line with the rest of roughly 1100 minor league plate appearances.

www.moundtalk.com Scouting Reports, Prospects and more...

by kschellenger on Dec 13, 2007 5:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No one

is projecting him to bat .500 in the majors.

Im just saying these "hot streaks" werent coincidence or luck when viewed in light of his entire MiLB career and skill set.

This wasnt random hot streaks or some kind of illusion.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 5:32 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

363 at bats isn't exactly a large sample size either. I think he will slug about .400 in the majors this season, which should be enough for a leadoff hitter to contribute positively. I am also a believer that stolen bases can somewhat make up for a lack of power. Ellsbury will have some leadoff singles turn into doubles when he steals second.

by kaisertown on Dec 13, 2007 5:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Slugging Percentage

Ellsbury will have some leadoff singles turn into doubles when he steals second.

Is somewhat of a flawed statistic in that manner. In addition to that, if you have ever seen Scot Podsednik, Jose Reyes or Carl Crawford on base, the pitchers are actually in an entirely different zone then they are with David Eckstein, Reed Johnson or Brian Giles leading off. So if Ellsbury can keep his OBP in the 360-380 range (which I think he is capable of doing), not only will he add some 35-40 steals (or more), but he will also improve the hitting of the batters sitting behind him as he will own the concentration of the pitcher for those 400 or so at bats (assuming around 150 times on first with no one else on the base paths multiplied by the 2nd, 3rd and even 4th hitters hitting with him on base - not an exact figure, but still something to consider).

The internet's latest attempt at understanding what is going on inside baseball - http://theoutsiderslook.blogspot.com

by bheikoop on Dec 15, 2007 12:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think what were seeing...

is championship envy. People are sick of the Sox and sick of Boston.

I wonder how many would have Ellsbury an A- if the Sox didnt make the playoffs in 07... I bet if there was a "What grade would you give Clay Buchholz?" poll the leader would be "B."

Then again, I remember people here going on and on about how Trevor Crowe should be rated higher than Ellsbury last year.

What is it about this kid that is making people want to take him down a notch?

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 5:18 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury

Actually, I like Buchholz a lot.

The things that would give me pause with Ellsbury are:

74 XBH in 1017 MiLB AB's.
111 BB in 1017 MiLB AB (not bad, but not great).
127 K in 1017 MiLB AB (not bad, but not great).
Started his Age-23 season in AA ball (again, not bad, but not great).

He's a very good prospect, and the defense and game-changing speed are huge bonuses. I don't think A- is indefensible, but I'd probably give him a B+, since - other than the playoff heroics - nothing screams superstar about this guy.

by BobbyMac on Dec 14, 2007 12:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

by doublestix on Dec 14, 2007 2:36 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

B+

I like Ellsbury but honestly he strikes me as a solid major league player, not a star. The hot start in the majors this year has everyone thinking superstar, but I see him coming back down to earth in a full season. I think he'll be a .285/.355/.415 ish type player, with good defense and some stolen bases.

To me he is Jose Reyes with a little less power and like 20 fewer SB's. And just like Jose his 'star' will be built more on style of play and what city he plays in more than his actual production.

by GoldenSpikes24 on Dec 13, 2007 5:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

So

youre saying you wouldnt have given Jose Reyes an A-?

Jose Reyes: 343 MiLB games, 129 SB(2.65/G), .423 SLG, .761 OPS

Jacoby Ellsbury: 250 MiLB games, 105 SB(2.38/G), .425, .814 OPS

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 5:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re: Reyes

Reyes plays SS. While CF is also a defensive premium position, it's still doesn't carry the premium of SS. Reyes is certainly the more valuable asset.

by McLovin on Dec 13, 2007 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair to Reyes

he was much younger than Ellsbury when he put up those numbers.

http://mvn.com/milb-yankees/

by lemonjello on Dec 13, 2007 5:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury

Started at A- and has only had two full years in the minors, fwiw. He wasnt old for his level, either.

Reyes also had weaker SLG numbers and less SBs in the high minors. He accumulated much of that against weaker competition in A ball(though he was always young for his level.

But if you think my point was that Ellsbury >> Reyes you are WAY missing my point.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 5:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If your going to put up nothing but MILB #

your going to get burned a lot.

Miguel Cabrera: 368 MILB games. .777 OPS

yes let's just throw around lump numbers and be ignor the context of the player .

for fun comp, Melky Cabrera 357 milb games .766OPS

Grady Sizemore 529 games .782 OPS

I kinda doubt anyone thinks the Melkman can hit close to that other M.Cabrera just because his MILB OPS isn't too far off. (though to be fair, Melky scores very well in terms of relative age / league context too , he might have a bit more in him than pundits give him credit for)

Ellsbury is fairly unlikely to hit many dingers down the road and projecting anyone to be over .400 OBP is just not realistic espically for a low power guy.

what is he though? .300 / .370 /.400 ? that's good and all but clearly not superstar material unless he steals around Reyes' rate (which again, isn't fair to assume) not to meantion this sort of player would suffer tremendously if he lose a step or have a few more unlucky bounces turned against him.

Again , guys like Raine don't show up too often, speed guys are the more difficult to translate. while he's a very good prospect, it just doesn't seem like a great idea to think he's a sure fired star with no weakness.

by RollingWave on Dec 14, 2007 3:49 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Re:

"what is he though? .300/.370 /.400 ? that's good and all"

That line works out to a .770 OPS and roughly equivalent to Coco's Crisp's peak years in 2004 (.790) and 2005 (.810). Yet everyone thinks Coco is now an expendable player at age 27.

The morale of this story is that if your ceiling is a low .800s OPS you're not going to hit it every year. People will turn on you when you have that inevitable .710 OPS season because of a bum wheel or wrist.

I'm in the Ellsbury is a B+ rather than A- crowd. I also wouldn't have placed him within 10 spots of where he landed on the community list.

by McLovin on Dec 14, 2007 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

OPS...

dramatically under-values On-base percentage. The ~30 points of slugging added from .400 to .430 is NOWHERE near as important as the OBP from .340 to .370.

by BobbyMac on Dec 14, 2007 10:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well

First off, that's why I said Coco's OPS of 790 and 810 were roughly equivalent than the 770 OPS the OP suggested for Ellsbury rather than saying they were better.

Secondly, Coco's minor league career OBP was .370 with a .426 mark in AAA. It's not uncommon for OBP to degrade in the majors for guys with nil or only fair power. It's not like Ellsbury is never going to dip below .370. He'll certainly have seasons lower than that.

by McLovin on Dec 14, 2007 10:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I like Ellsbury a lot, but I'm not convinced that the power he showed in his brief stay in the majors last year is going to translate to the majors. He's still going to have a very good career, but the A/A- grades should be reserved for superstars or near superstars, and see Ellsbury as just a notch below that level.

by M Gianella on Dec 13, 2007 5:23 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

well

id be worried that he really hasnt hit for power, and i think his BB rate will take a hit because of it.

he is a very good defensive player, and is very fast. he is likely a .280-.300 BA player.

but his secondary skills do need work. i think that he should be a B+

by bmxstreetrider86 on Dec 13, 2007 5:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A-

by Sox Puppet on Dec 13, 2007 5:39 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Tough

It depends on if you are grading on a curve or not... let me explain.

To be honest, I don't think there are a lot of good hitting prospects out there. We ranked him as the #9 hitting prospect, and in most years, he wouldn't be close to that because of his record of limited power and not much potential in that area. If you grade players based on their competition in a particular year, then he deserves an A-. I think he's a perfect B+ myself... a little older (24), 3 plus tools, 2 below average ones, and in any normal year, I think you'd see it that way. Especially considering that one of his plus tools (speed) is probably the least valued and one of his negative tools (power) is probably the most valued.

The way you define "A" prospects is "elite". "B" prospects are defined as ones that will enjoy successful careers. I'd lean more towards the latter because I doubt he'll ever be an elite player.

by jc3 on Dec 13, 2007 5:59 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Really...

I would be more concerned about his arm strength than his power. Most Red Sox scouts believe he'll be able to average 12-15 homeruns a year. Do you really expect any more from a guy who is going to steal 40+ bases a year?

I had the pleasure of being able to watch him play this year in AAA and he was easily the fastest guy I saw there. He doesn't just run fast, he accelerates fast, which creates a lot more problems on the basepaths than most people account for.

by ajake57 on Dec 13, 2007 6:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A-

in another park, probably B+.

He has a good enough pull stroke to not really be considered a real slap hitter. I think his power ability will allow him to get it against the wall and be on second before its retrieved. Fair number of pull homers to go along with it as well as the normal shots. He seems made for that park and can refine his game over time to take advantage of it.

He seems to be a good enough player that even if his away split is worse, it probably won't be too much so.

If he moves to the homerdome, he wouldn't be doomed, but I think he'd be a B+ at this point for me. Possibly B in Coors where the ball could float and be caught instead of bouncing off that wall. He could maybe even refine his swing to take advantage of the large outfield there too.

Seems like a solid bet to be above average in production with the bat, with good defense and coupled with the speed threat on the bases, that means A- to me at this point.

by roaddog on Dec 13, 2007 7:06 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Bourne

Bourne gets an A+. Guy is a stud.
Bourn I would rate a B- because I don't think he will hit enough.

I like the Brett Butler comps. Somebody who did a lot of different good things with his speed.

by doubledribble on Dec 13, 2007 7:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury

In our 12 team AL Strat league here was our first 2 rounds...

Gordon, Alex
Matsuzaka, Daisuke
Chamberlain, Joba
Buchholz, Clay
Hughes, Philip
Butler, Billy
Hochevar, Luke
Ellsbury, Jacoby
Saltalamacch, Jarrod
Maybin, Cameron
Guthrie, Jeremy
Iwamura, Akinori

Kennedy, Ian
Barton, Daric
Wood, Brandon
Clement, Jeff
Pena Jr., Tony
Buck, Travis
Suzuki, Kurt
Jurrjens, Jair
Cabrera, Asdrubal
Slowey, Kevin
Soria, Joakim
Danks, John

I came away with Gordon, Maybin & Kennedy. I prefer Maybin to Ellsbury but we shall see.

by snuffy on Dec 13, 2007 8:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Fantastic prospect

.319 100ish 12-15 XX 40

an excellent prospect. makeup is fantastic. Not cliche to say Johnny Damon.

by creepers on Dec 13, 2007 8:50 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury - Counterpoint

Infrequent poster: I don't get the build up for Ellsbury. One baseball site I look at has his comparables Chris Duffy, Nate McLouth and Willie Taveras. I don't think he is close to Damon in ability. His power will be dependent on his home ballpark and I thought we looked more at prospects skill sets. Since when did avg, speed guys come back in vogue? How is he any better than the numbers Juan Pierre puts up and most sabr type analysis doesn't seem to have much respect for JP? Not trying to be contentious just help me understand why he gets this much love.

by ibhipp on Dec 13, 2007 9:34 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

How is he any better than Juan Pierre?

Ellsbury gets on base way more than Pierre. His minor league OBPs read like this: .364, .383, .494, .354. Pierre's OBP the last three years is .330, .331, .343. Pierre gives away a tremendous amount of outs. Even when Pierre has had decent OBP seasons they were the output of his AVG being high. His walk rate is around 5%. Pierre was a pretty nice little player for a few years there, but he's been terrible for the last three.

Also, Pierre's defense is atrocious. He takes terrible routes.

Finally, Ellsbury does lack some pop, but still hits a good deal more xbhs than Pierre, who is simply a slap hitter. Ellsbury is a doubles hitter, but he has actually put up 1/4 of Pierre's career HR total in his brief time in the bigs(3/12).

Ellsbury is a much better player than Juan Pierre right now, and there is good reason to believe Ellsbury's peak will be far better than Juan Pierre's peak.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 9:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

well said

Considering how fast Pierre is, It's shocking how mediocre he is defensively.

by kaisertown on Dec 13, 2007 10:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What I cant believe

is that they would consider moving him to LF. You are giving away runs if you play Juan Pierre as your everyday leftfielder.

Its a beyond terrible idea. No excuse. Heads should roll.

He's already outrageously overpaid... I cant even wait to see how bad he looks overall after a year in LF. His offensive production will set records for below replacement production from an everyday player. Not to mention he will still be an awful defender in LF.

At the end of the year we may very well look back and be able to say quantitatively that the Dodgers would have been better off not putting a LFer out there than playing Juan Pierre. Half serious here. He may be a worse option in LF than half of all AAA Ofers in 2008. I wouldnt play him in LF in the Dominican Winter League.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Haha

as funny as that was, it is probably true.

by kaisertown on Dec 14, 2007 3:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury Counterpoint

Pierre's minor league numbers in his age 20-22 seasons
Avg 330, OPB 373 SLG 392 SB% 79

Ellsbury's minor league numbers in his age 21-23
seasons
Avg 314 OPB 390 SLG 426 SB% 80
His minor leaque HR totals 1, 7, 2

Ellsbury does have a edge in power but less than 10 Hr's a year isn't much. What skills set does he have that a Endy Chavez type doesn't other than maybe a small power advantage.

You did not address the home park factors for HR's. You think Ellsbury has the pop to hit 10-15 HR's out of Chavez Ravine or a neutral park even though he has never hit more than 7 in a year.

I agree that he is a good prospect but when I compare his game to other A level prospects or B+ and I still don't get it. Unless as I mentioned previously the community has reversed course and avg & speed guys with good gloves are back. Is he really comparable or slightly below a Justin Upton, Colby Rasmus Jay Bruce and Cameron Maybin or BJ Upton as a centerfielder on skills in a neutral environment?

Just my thoughts, I enjoy reading the comments and opinions of others.

by ibhipp on Dec 13, 2007 10:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Im confused ...

...by what you mean by the home park factor...

Fenway has leaned slightly towards a pitchers park for years now despite its reputation, and isnt all that homer friendly for lefties.

If you look at this article it actually shows that Fenway hurts lefthanders w/ regards to HRs. Lefties are presumably helped avg wise in fenway b/c of the wall, but that's an entirely different argument(and not relevant to Ellsbury really - or at least to this discussion). I suppose you could make the argument Fenway turns some 2Bs into 3Bs but I dont think that makes all that big a difference, nor would it really skew the stats we have from this year for Ellsbury and his SLG.

Did you mean Pawtucket or Portland? The Portland stats are probably all the more impressive b/c of the terrible weather they had when he was there and the only Sox MiLB club that really boosts offense is Lancaster - and that's a new affiliate this last year... Ellsbury never played there or in that offense happy Cal league.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 10:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not trying to confuse.

I don't mean to argue and your numbers are valid but I guess my orignal comment was avg, glove and speed don't usually add up to a A- prospect. What will his avg stat line in the majors look like compared to the other rookies or prospect centerfielders I listed above in a neutral environment? How does he get comparable ratings to them?

I'll let it go at that. Nice having this discussion with you.

by ibhipp on Dec 13, 2007 11:10 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

In fairness

Pierre DID get on base in the minors : 396 (20), 361 (21), 376(22) over his 3 years, across 4 levels, from 20-22.

Otherwise, yeah. I basically agree that Ellsbury is better now, and will be, too. The glove alone makes the difference.

by GuyinNY on Dec 13, 2007 11:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

nevermind...

I simply walked away for a while, came back, posted, and didn't bother to check to see if someone had already replied similarly. My mistake, and I apologize.

by GuyinNY on Dec 13, 2007 11:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To me Ellsbury is Richie Ashburn with more

Power.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 13, 2007 9:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

here is Ashburn's baseball reference

http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/ashburi01.shtml

by Bravesin07 on Dec 13, 2007 9:37 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ashburn

Really, do you know who he was? I'm really just curious because I suspect rather strongly that you just took the Brett Butler comparison, saw Ashburn as one of his comps and decided to use him. Since you have previously stated that you are a graduate student looking for work, I kind of doubt you were around when Ashburn was playing. And that guy is in the HOF? WTF? 7th in MVP was the highest he got

by wir963 on Dec 13, 2007 10:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I must be missing something...

Im definitely too young to have seen Ashburn play, but I do agree he profiles similarly with Ellsbury. Im not sure what youre trying to say.

I dont agree Ellsbury would necessarily have that more power... if we translate Ashburn's stats to the present day he'd get a nice bump. He played in an era and league that significantly suppressed offense.

Im not entirely sold he belongs in the hall, but he was a very good player, had a knack for timely hits and is a Philly icon. But whether he is a HOFer or not the comparison is somewhat apt. Though Id love to see Ellsbury get his walk rate up to Ashburn's level.

I think the Sox would be pretty happy if Ellsbury had that type of career(especially translated).

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 10:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ashburn...

...played from 1948 to 1962 for three teams (Phillies, Cubs, 1962 Mets) that had hitter-friendly ballparks. (Connie Mack Park in Philadelphia wasn't homer-friendly, but Ashburn wasn't a homerun hitter anyway).

That era was a good one for offenses, and particularly for hitters with strong plate discipline -- very high base on ball levels from 1947 until the strike zone was expanded in 1963. It was the perfect era for Ashburn to play in; I'm not so sure he'd have had much of a bump playing in the current era.

Back on topic, I think very highly of Ellsbury, and agree with John's A- grade. He's very good defensively (albeit not as good as Ashburn, who was one of the best defensive center fielders in major-league history), has shown strong plate discipline, has doubles power now, and, I believe, will eventually hit 10-15 homeruns per season.

- Jack

by JackSpellman on Dec 14, 2007 9:06 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ashburn shoulda been

the Phillies manager in the '80s, especially after '83. That he wouldn't take the job was an early indictment of the Philadelphia sports franchise ownership ethos: Just put up a half decent team, cuz the fans come anyway.

by smittybanton on Dec 20, 2007 9:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I'm working now that's why my posts have

dramatically declined. I work at a medical laboratory.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 14, 2007 4:59 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury

I agree with the rating I was most impressed with his discipline and plate command and he had more pop (418 slg) than I expected. His lack of much time in AA or AAA is a concern but he performed so consistently well in a fairly high pressure environment. I think he will be an elite true leadoff hitter

by ribman on Dec 13, 2007 10:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury = Lofton v 2.0

Less power, better defense.

by nheck on Dec 14, 2007 7:29 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Jut to make it clear

I agree with the A- grade.

by nheck on Dec 14, 2007 7:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

B+

I've followed Jacoby closely and I think he has great upside, but his numbers just don't support an A-. B+ is solid for him at this point in his career based on what he's done.

I also don't think he is as good defensively as Coco in CF. He misplayed the wall a couple of times which was a surprise since Portland has a similar wall.

by Zero Gs on Dec 14, 2007 9:27 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Oh

Well, if he misplayed the wall a couple times I guess that means he's overrated defensively...

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, he should be very good defensively

I think that's probably the consensus, but those that are predicting multiple gold gloves as if it's a fact may be overrating him (IMO). I think he has a real chance to consistently be one of the top CF in the AL, but he currently isn't even the best defensive CF on his own team.

by Zero Gs on Dec 14, 2007 8:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

Two things.

The Gold Glove is meaningless.
He's not the best CFer on his team (defensively). But there might be one or two better defensive CFers in all of basebal than crisp right now.

This is me being polite.

by CrimsonLiederhosen on Dec 15, 2007 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

To be fair...

He isnt as good as Coco, youre right. He's very good though.

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 1:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A- for defense and projectability

I agree with others that Ellsbury doesn't have the upside of some of the other A- prospects around, however he has already established his credentials as a solid above-average major league player. RIGHT NOW he is a better player than Maybin or Bruce, even if the latter have greater potential.

Expect a .360-.380 OBP, good CF defense, great speed on the bases. And his "downside"? Maybe a .350 OBP, average CF defense, great speed on the bases. That's worth an A- grade to me.

by Valentine on Dec 14, 2007 11:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

id

bet jay bruce is a better hitter right now. he is significantly younger and has blown ellsbury out of the water at every level

by bmxstreetrider86 on Dec 14, 2007 4:05 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Bruce

I think Bruce will have trouble in his first exposure to the majors -- he only has 250 AB in the upper minors and that K rate suggest a swing with some major holes.

As you point out, however, he is much younger. By the time he is 24, there is a good chance Bruce will be an MVP candidate.

by Valentine on Dec 14, 2007 5:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A-

Because good leadoff guys are undervalued, as a rule.

by MontrealMets on Dec 14, 2007 12:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

A- is about right

I dont have time to read all the comments but people are just hating. People are looking at this from a fantasy stand point and that is wrong. Ellsbury is a top notch prospect, because not only does he project as a great lead off hitter, but he projects as a guy who will win multiple gold gloves in centerfield.

and for whoever compared his talents to michael bourn, get real thats a joke.

by bigmex on Dec 14, 2007 3:15 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

There ya go...

Would anyone trade Ellsbury for Bourne?

Ok, so what would you have to add to Bourne to get Ellsbury? Another B prospect...

A-

by alskor on Dec 14, 2007 3:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

Bourne was traded for Brad Lidge
Ellsbury is being discussed in a trade for JOHAN SANTANA, think about it

by wir963 on Dec 14, 2007 6:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ehh

While I think he's better than Bourn, I just don't think it's as much as people seem to assume.

Here's the general problem with average speed guys.

a. it's hard to consistently hit anything over .310

b. even great average hitters have a decent chance of seeing it dip significantly in unlucky years.

c. speed guys tend to decline faster due to the punishment their body takes, being a CF / SS tend to make things worse. their consisteny tend to be less than great.

of course there are exception to the rules. Jeter , Raines were definately those guys (but Jeter does have significantly better power too) but against that's not fair to assume anyone being.

I just think that Ellsbury's potential downfall is a bit more than people raelize while his true celing isn't as great as most A prospects.

by RollingWave on Dec 16, 2007 2:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

speed peak

when does speed peak? mid-twenties? he's already 23.

by b on Dec 14, 2007 9:51 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

+1

Yep.

by future on Dec 15, 2007 12:43 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hey John

If Ellsbury was a Met would he be a B? Would your hatred of the Mets make him a B-?

Just wondering. :) You've admitted your anti-Met bias before, what about some anti Red Sox bias. ;)

by future on Dec 15, 2007 11:59 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

LOL

LOL....

Well, given how much I slobbered over David Wright back in the day, or how much I've defended Mike Pelfrey, I don't think my anti-Mets bias shows up TOO badly in my analysis. At least I hope not.

by John Sickels on Dec 16, 2007 12:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Ellsbury

I think the Ellsbury rating has little to do with any Red Sox bias and more to do with the type of player he is. He is Johnny Damon at his best but more likely will not hit with the power Damon has over his career which makes him a solid B. He impressed a lot of people with his hustle in the playoffs and the end of last season. Last year was also the 1st year as a pro he hit over 20 doubles in a season... TWENTY people. He has also never hit 10 homers in a season.

by MFBabyFeets1 on Dec 21, 2007 8:46 AM EST reply actions 0 recs