Community Positional Prospect #12
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 5:34 PM EST
Email
PrintWith 37.3% of the vote, Miguel Sano is elected Community Positional Prospect #11.
RESULTS:
Miguel Sano: 37.3%
Bubba Starling: 11.9%
Yonder Alonso: 10.4%
Francisco Lindor: 6.0%
George Springer: 4.5%
Michael Choice: 4.5%
Cheslor Cuthbert: 4.5%
Oscar Taveras: 4.5%
Anthony Rizzo: 4.5%
Brett Jackson: 4.5% (write in)
Xander Bogaerts: 3.0% (write in)
Nick Castellanos: 3.0% (write in)
Nick Franklin: 1.5% (write in)
Christian Yelich: 0%
CANDIDATES: Bubba Starling, Yonder Alonso, Francisco Lindor, George Springer, Michael Choice, Chelsor Cuthbert, Oscar Taveras, Anthony Rizzo, Jake Marisnick, Xander Bogaerts
IN ROTATION: Yasmani Grandal (#9-1.4%), Nick Franklin (#9-1.4%), Gary Sanchez (#9-0%), Hak-Ju Lee (#10-1.4%), Brett Jackson (#10-1.4%), Anthony Gose (#10-1.4%), Christian Yelich (#11-0%)
TESTERS: Nick Castellanos, Jonathan Singleton, Mike Olt, Garin Cecchini, Oswaldo Arcia, Jedd Gyorko, Leonys Martin
#01 - BRYCE HARPER - 59.2%
#02 - MIKE TROUT - 38.8% (In Poll #1)
#03 - JURICKSON PROFAR - 52.9%
#04 - MANNY MACHADO - 31.5% (55.1% In Runoff)
#05 - DEVIN MESORACO - 45.1%
#06 - WILL MYERS - 31.6% (51.4% In Runoff)
#07 - JESUS MONTERO - 61.3%
#08 - ANTHONY RENDON - 53.1%
#09 - TRAVIS D'ARNAUD - 46.6%
#10 - NOLAN ARENADO - 33.3%
#11 - MIGUEL SANO - 37.3%
172 comments
|
Add comment
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1
"When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
by BenMc5 on Nov 16, 2025 5:47 PM EST up reply actions
+1
If everybody likes you, then either no one knows anything about you, or you're dead.
by Archie A on Nov 16, 2025 6:39 PM EST up reply actions
+1
__________________________________________________
"He who gets the best players usually wins" - Bobby Bowden
by Russ on Nov 16, 2025 8:17 PM EST up reply actions
+1
"We did a lot of good things last year, and now we've got Julio ... That does nothing but improve the offense, and we expect to do better. That's our goal, to lead the NFL in everything. Every offensive category." -Roddy White
by Beachy Keen on Nov 16, 2025 10:17 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Nov 17, 2025 12:08 AM EST up reply actions
+1
Minor League Ball's 2010 Rookie of the Year Poster
If you didn't know by now, my screen name is sarcastic
by mathisrocks5 on Nov 16, 2025 5:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
+1
Just don't piss her off, otherwise she'll get all Dien Bien Phu up in your Boxer Rebellion - caknuck
btho Iowa State
by MonkeyEpoxy on Nov 16, 2025 5:55 PM EST up reply actions
+1
Read Me At: Twitter/Blog/MLBBonusBaby /Giants Nirvana
by Gobroks on Nov 16, 2025 6:41 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
10
"When the going gets tough, the tough get going."
by BenMc5 on Nov 17, 2025 7:52 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
+1
Yoenis Cespedes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW9ge8l3jY8
^ the bottom video ^
MLB Move Type "B" compensation to the post second round, pre third round area.
by SteveHoffmanSlowey on Nov 17, 2025 6:16 AM EST up reply actions
+1
" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin
by casejud on Nov 17, 2025 11:39 AM EST up reply actions
+1
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 16, 2025 6:26 PM EST up reply actions
OTHERS (Post Player Name And Reply +1 To Officially Vote For Non-Listed Players)
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 5:36 PM EST reply actions 3 recs
+1
Y’all beat me to posting his name :)
by cookiedabookie on Nov 16, 2025 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
This one should be really interesting
As only Starling (8) and Alonso (7) received more than 4 votes in the last poll.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 5:37 PM EST up reply actions
Those are actually the two I like the most
The best upside guy vs the highest floor guy.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 5:41 PM EST up reply actions
How did Alonso look in LF?
I thought I recall reading he was borderline abysmal, but can’t remember if I’m confusing him w/ someone else.
In a nutshell, is he now relegated to 1B for sure?
by siddfynch on Nov 16, 2025 5:49 PM EST up reply actions
Well
They are still going to attempt to put him in the OF or at 3B!!!! But that doesn’t affect his prospect status in my view. He is a 1B and should be an average defender there, maybe even slightly plus. A team could put Prince Fielder in CF, and he’d be pretty bad out there, but that doesn’t affect how good he is at 1B.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 5:52 PM EST up reply actions
this about sums it up
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=17663983&topic_id=10025018&c_id=mlb
by PrincetonCubs on Nov 16, 2025 6:12 PM EST up reply actions
Ha
That is true, but not really fair. He’s a 1B prospect and a good one.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 6:13 PM EST up reply actions
Is there a reason we're racing through this so fast?
The last hitter poll was only open for 8 hours or so. I realize Sano had a large lead, but I think we should be going at least 12 hours(if not a bit more depending on when the poll was posted) to give everyone a chance to vote.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 16, 2025 6:14 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Well, there were 67 votes, and we haven’t had over 80 votes in any recent poll that went 24 hours, except for one poll (the crazy 3 way, with close to 10 people voting for the 1st time and only time). Even if we got to 85 votes which would be very unlikely, Bubba would need just about all 18 votes to make it a runoff, which is ridiculously unlikely. I think people are voting here often, checking this often, because we aren’t waiting overly long periods of time. When there is at least a 1% chance for someone else to win a poll or force a runoff, I’ll leave it open. Obviously the 1% is subjective, but you don’t realistically think Bubba or Alonso or anyone else could have realistically forced a runoff do you?
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 6:19 PM EST up reply actions
People seem to ask me to close these polls faster than I do
Though one person (besides yourself) indicated he wishes they were open longer, but the poll he was referring to was open about 21 hours.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 6:20 PM EST up reply actions
No, but that's not the only reason to leave a poll open though
We have plenty of time to get this done as far as along as we are(you’re doing a fine job of running things), so I don’t see a reason to shut one down after 8 hours even with a clear winner. You made a comment about only two other players getting more than 4 votes, had it ran longer maybe we see cases made for some of the other guys with 4 votes. As it is, only one guy was dropped from the poll but maybe if it ran another 4 or 5 hours a couple others emerge and you could cycle two or three more names in.
I wouldn’t worry about people asking you to close them fast, you can turn people off by closing polls too quickly because they don’t get a chance to vote(especially people on the West Coast in a time frame like this). I’d say a 12 hour minimum is worth enforcing, just to give everyone a chance to vote in each poll as well as to give more opportunity to spur discussion.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 16, 2025 6:25 PM EST up reply actions
I'm careful to make sure we get a lot of votes
Not just a big lead. 67 votes wouldn’t be enough to close out a close poll, but even close polls that go the full 24 hours just don’t get many more votes than that. I do agree that closing polls early could turn people off, and I don’t want to do that. I left the Matt Moore pitcher poll open a long long time, for that very reason. But last year, I think we went 24 hours way too often, and in general the polls were open a bit too long. It takes away the enthusiasm when it lingers on and on. 12 isn’t unreasonable for blowouts though, and I’d always have them open solidly longer than 12 if part of that 12 was normal sleeping hours. I’ll make a better effort though, but there are people on both sides of the fence, and I’m trying to find a balance between the sides.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 6:30 PM EST up reply actions
The deeper we get into the polling
the more you’re going to want to leave them open longer, just to get some actual separation between candidates and to get a better idea of who needs dropped from the poll.
There is nothing wrong with leaving the polls open 24 hours, other than too many people here have short attention spans. Don’t worry about catering to people asking you to end polls early, it’s much better to err on the side of caution and give everyone a chance to vote in every poll.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 16, 2025 7:28 PM EST up reply actions
Well
We’ll see. I will seriously take into consideration every suggestion people have, whether it is to leave them open even when they are 99.9% decided, or whether it is to close them early when only 80% of people have voted. I won’t end a poll too early, without it being fairly obvious who needs to be dropped from the poll and who shouldn’t be, as well as who should be re-added. All those 3-vote candidates that stayed on even if several of them got more votes and several did not, and we had 15 more total votes in the poll. Could Yelich have got to 3 votes as well, and made things a bit messier? Yeah, maybe. But seeing that he had 0 votes and no one begging for him to be added before that, made it pretty safe to drop.
Votes drizzle out after we get to 70 or so, no matter how early we get there. The vote totals is the main thing I’m keeping my eye on, as well as seeing massive separation, like Sano in this case. The clock is somewhat important, especially when it is really close, but the clock cuts both ways, and no one who missed a vote in any poll has said anything about having a chance to vote yet.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
I’m with Gatling on the 12 hour window. I had a longer response written out but of course my computer shut down. The jist of it being that I understand you only close polls early when the winner is a virtual certainty but votes for secondary players do effect which players are nominated for the next round. Now I understand the player doesn’t have to be nominated to be voted for but if I don’t see the player in the poll, I might forget about them.
by The_Bunk on Nov 16, 2025 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
Except in this case, there was no conceivably way that any of the guys I left on the list would have been left off with more votes. Only the possibility of Yelich remaining on the poll was a factor. I am definitely thinking about whether people get to stay on the poll or whether they are going to be booted off it, and closing polls early can affect that, but so far, only 0 vs 1 vs 2 total votes kind of impact. Later on when we have many players with multiple votes, there will be a different dynamic. I think there is a little bit of concern over what I might do in the future, moreso than what I have done so far. I realize that as the dynamics chance and the voting starts to flatten out, we’ll have to keep the polls open longer, but I do not quite see the previous poll as a good example of that problem.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 7:58 PM EST up reply actions
If people really want to vote for someone, they can take the time to put them in the other section
I started that with Brett Jackson three polls ago, and will continue to vote for him until he is on. Plus, it is a good way to get them back on the poll (which I think Brett should have been added back on since he essentially tied for fifth).
by cookiedabookie on Nov 16, 2025 8:02 PM EST up reply actions
well
he was on the poll before this one. just because there were a couple votes for him, doesn’t mean marisnick shouldn’t get a shot again, as he was next in line, and i put xander on ahead of jackson because they were only 1 write in vote apart, and xander had been waiting longer. jackson will be on next poll.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 8:05 PM EST up reply actions
Nah, that's fine
You are doing great, and are very receptive to suggestions. I still voted for him in the other section.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 16, 2025 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
What is the cutoff percentage you are using?
You have a number guys of at 4.5%, that’s 3 votes each on a 67 vote total. If 10 more votes come in, all of a sudden 3 votes gets you 3.9%. Maybe two of those guys get another vote or two and stay on, maybe a couple of them stay at three and a better candidate comes on. Unless you’re using like 2% or 3% as the cutoff point(too low IMO) there was definitely possibility for that to change.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 16, 2025 11:21 PM EST up reply actions
Well it is changing
So far no one with at least 2 percent has been left off, and we’ve had a lot of turnover in the list. 2 percent isn’t a hard line though, though 4.5 or 3.9 clears it by quite a bit. removing one player from the list plus the winner is enough turnover i think. one more would have been ok too, but there was no one else getting much support whose turn it was to get back on. jackson got some support, but he was on one poll before, and didn’t do very well then. he’ll be on next poll.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
You really need to establish a cutoff point
and stick with it for consistency if nothing else. Keeps people from complaining Player X got taken off with this percentage but Player Y wasn’t. Plus, the deeper you get the more that cutoff point will be needed so enforcing it now conditions everyone to the standard.
It can make a difference in the voting if players are cycled in more frequently. Whether it’s laziness or what, people are more apt to vote for a player when they have to do the least work, so in this format it’s just a +1 vs. having to list the name in the tester section.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 16, 2025 11:40 PM EST up reply actions
Well I generally agree
That a cutoff becomes more important as time goes on, but honestly so far, there hasn’t been a need for one. I’ve been cycling through them quite a bit. But this is still the early stages…maybe this poll will be the first of the middle stages, but so far in the hitters poll, most decisions have been pretty damn obvious. There will always be an easy answer to why player X and not player Y, since Player X will have the higher percentage than Player Y. But again, you are anticipating potential problems, moreso than responding to them. That’s ok with me. But I don’t believe I need to lock in the cutoff at 2%. Certainly it can’t be much higher than that right now, maybe a little higher. And in the future it very well might need to be raised. I’d say we’ve got an average of 4 new players each poll once it got going. Maybe you think we need 7-8 new ones each time, but I think 3-4 is decent. Later on maybe it will need to be more, when the player rankings start really diverging, but so far so good i think.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
I think you need to lock in a cutoff point of 5% minimum
We’ve always run between 5% and 7% for the most part and I don’t see any evidence that it should deviate from that. Maintaining a cutoff point in that range allows you to rotate in more names and get more testers a shot on the poll. We’re at a point where new names could surprise at any time, but the best chance for that to happen is by getting more names in the rotation and not leaving them in the tester pool.
Acting on these things now eliminates potential problems before they surface, and the more consistent you can be with the process the better in the long run.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 12:37 AM EST up reply actions
i don't foresee any such problems
if you think this list should have had starling, alonso, lindor, and 7 new players, then we have a vastly different view of how to run these.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 1:05 AM EST up reply actions
the rotation
right now is pretty deep, and no one has been off the poll very long. i doubt you would have preferred all 9 players that lost to matt moore, off poll #2. and we are still in an early part of the list, where there is a fair amount of agreement on who should be on the list. opinions are diverging, and i am paying attention to that. as the opinions spread thinner, there will be more rotated players, and a good cutoff range will present itself. we are not quite at that point yet, though. right now we would have 5 new additions if we used a 2% cutoff. we’ll see what happens by tomorrow. i’m not going crazy and throwing subjectivity out the window. that is the kind of things that drives people nuts. i am going to listen to you and others when they have problems with the player pool. but i haven’t heard any real argument that i’ve mishandled the player pool in any way…maybe some people wanted brett jackson after missing only one poll, but that is one line i just can’t cross because 3 people voted for him.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 1:13 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with you
I’d also like to add that if someone doesn’t want to participate enough to writye in the player that they like in the “others” section, it’s hard to see thier non-vote mattering a whole lot.
" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin
by casejud on Nov 17, 2025 11:45 AM EST up reply actions
The other issue is that these threads die almost immediately once we move onto the next one
So closing them too quickly can cut out what would otherwise be good discussion. I don’t think you should have closed the last one so quick, though its not a big deal. If no one even has 50% of the votes, I think it should clearly be left open for at least 12 hours.
by nixa37 on Nov 16, 2025 7:48 PM EST up reply actions
Fine
If no one is at 50%, even if there is a blowout, i’ll leave it open for 12 hours. Only a few have been closed out in less time than that anyway.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 7:53 PM EST up reply actions
Thank You
It sucks to miss a day and see you’ve missed 4-5 polls and discussions.
by killa on Nov 16, 2025 8:08 PM EST up reply actions
I agree about the discussion dying off
Speaking discussion, perhaps we can start posting our next five for discussion, and debate the merits of the list. Or at the very least start a debate on who people would vote for in the next poll.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 16, 2025 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
Would people like separate discussion threads?
Maybe ones that last for 1-5, 6-10, etc. They will keep going if there is a good discussion even after the 5 group is decided in the polling.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
I know discussion is a big part of these lists
But they do tend to die out, even if open for 24 hours and a debate about Xander or Oscar Taveras’s merits can be tough to start up time and time again.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
Like this idea
Let’s start one for 15-20 on each list. It gives us time to debate it before it starts.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 16, 2025 8:09 PM EST up reply actions
if the first couple work out and people like them
then i’ll let you take over cookie. let’s just see how it goes first.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 8:28 PM EST up reply actions
I won't do one for the overall polls
As I think we can have that specific pitcher-hitter debate in the overall threads themselves, the merits of the specific players having already been discussed, hopefully a lot.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 8:07 PM EST up reply actions
I personally think Bogaerts has a higher ceiling than Starling
and by Rany Jayzaleri’s study, young high school hitters are worth twice as much as old ones, Starling is one of the 5 oldest high school hitters in the draft. He is competing against guys a year younger than him. Bogaerts has actually played in the minors, he had the highest ISO of an 18 year old in the SAL ever other than Adrian Beltre and Mike Stanton, has similar tools and plays a more important position.
by Bososx13 on Nov 16, 2025 6:05 PM EST reply actions
Well
You are making a good case that Xander’s statistics (including age) are better than Starling’s, but when it comes to young talents, projection plays a big part. I like Bogaerts as well, but I think Starling has the bigger upside. John has him as an A-, which I don’t quite agree with, but none of the guys left are A- to me.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 6:10 PM EST up reply actions
I don't know
Bogaerts has crazy power and is really athletic he will be a plus 3rd baseman if he’s moved there. I think he will be an above average SS if he can stick there, the problem isn’t defense, it’s size. He also has a great arm. He dosen’t have much speed, but that isn’t that important
by Bososx13 on Nov 16, 2025 6:23 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah
I like him and I’m not saying he doesn’t have any projection. That would be crazy. I just like Starling’s upside more.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 16, 2025 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
Can't argue
When someone just likes a guys upside . . . just have to wait and see. As far as Bosox’s logic on Jayzeleri’s work, I’d say that If he likes Bogearts based on that, he should like Tavares a lot more. He is just months older and, a lot better hitter!
Also Francisco Lindor is a whole year younger than Bogaerts and projects to play SS in the big leagues.
" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin
by casejud on Nov 17, 2025 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with you Bo
I would like to see some professional results from Starling before placing him above Xander. Right now, I have Xander at 15, Starling at 22 - but I tend to be overly cautious with high school draft picks until they show what they can do in the minors.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 16, 2025 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
I just find it hard
to put a high school draft pick over a younger player with similar tools who had the highest ISO in the SAL league by an 18 year old except for Mike Stanton and Adrian Beltre. The big thing Starling has over Bogaerts is speed, and by fangraphs’ baserunning stat, the difference isn’t usually more than 3 runs a year. I think Bogaerts is a better hitting than starling, and he plays a better position.
by Bososx13 on Nov 16, 2025 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
Not if he moves to 3b, like you say
CF > 3B no?
" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin
by casejud on Nov 17, 2025 11:29 AM EST up reply actions
They're generally considered of equal defensive importance now.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 2:05 PM EST up reply actions
Yep though it should be noted
That there is a larger population of players that can play CF than 3B simply because of handedness, so I could certainly see an argument for it being tougher to find a 3B than a CF.
by nixa37 on Nov 18, 2025 2:47 PM EST up reply actions
these are the results so far
Starling 11,Lindor 9, Alonso 6 ,Bogaerts 5,Rizzo 5, Jackson 4,Springer 1, Taveras 1
by Bososx13 on Nov 16, 2025 8:16 PM EST reply actions
For me
this is just a floor vs ceiling preference evaluation. You have tons of kids that haven’t even played in AA ball or at all in professional baseball, then two guys who have played in the majors, Rizzo and Alonso.
Since Alonso provides a very good chance to be an league-average or better 1B, and considering the bust rate of some of the enticing guys (Starling, Lindor, even Springer), I had to go with Alonso here (over Rizzo, cause I like Alonso more).
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Nov 17, 2025 12:10 AM EST reply actions
I'm a big proponent of valuing a player's floor
but a league average 1B isn’t a terribly valuable player. I’m not sure you can even argue Alonso has the highest floor on his own team at this point, Grandal should almost blow that out of the water on positional adjustment. Alonso sneaks into the Top 50 overall for me, but I have 12 more hitters ahead of him at this point.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 12:43 AM EST up reply actions
That's
his absolute floor. A league average 1B isn’t that easy to find. I mean, simply by definition, there about 15-20 guys in baseball that can do similar things. Technically, a guy like Troy Tulowitzki or Matt Kemp certainly has the bat to go then play 1B and be league average or better (much better!), but remember, that’s his absolute floor for me.
I think he can easily provide an above-average bat and an above-average glove to the point where he can be a top 8 1B in MLB for several years. Grandal has a solid year, but that was still at AA. Even with the positional value he will provide and the good defense he has, I have a hard time ranking Grandal’s floor as higher than Alonso who went a long way in proving he can hit major league pitching pretty well.
I’m probably a bigger believer than most in his bat though I guess.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Nov 17, 2025 1:07 AM EST up reply actions
To
expound a bit (and sorry for the double post), the way I see it is guys like Starling and Lindor have a massive chance to bust. Lindor’s floor is probably a bit higher than Starling’s, but if you told me I was betting and I had to choose on one (not both), lets say Lindor for this case, that he will either
a) Make it to the big leagues and be a big league starter for multiple (two, so its not a fluke) years or better
or
b) Be a bench bat and never a starter, or worse
I’m choosing (b) every time. Now, the way I see it, if you told the Reds they could have (b) or a average major league first baseman cost controlled for 6 years, and that 1B has a little bit of upside to be above-average, or if everything goes right, fringe all-star, I think the Reds choose the first baseman. If you point out they have Votto, I’d say (1) that shouldn’t matter, (2) they can trade them, because (3) if you told my team, the Pirates, they could have that, they’d love it. There’s a gaping whole there right now. Same thing with a trade partner that has been connected (more in the blogsphere of good matches than real rumors) to the Reds, the Rays.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Nov 17, 2025 1:15 AM EST up reply actions
I mean we're talking like a 2 win difference in the positional adjustment alone
Do you see Alonso being 20 runs better with the bat than Grandal consistently(defensive ability aside)? That just seems like a good bit to ask. Not sure what you’re projecting for Alonso offensively though, but maybe Paul Konerko’s 2011 as a ceiling? That’s still only a 3 to 4 win player(Konerko had 3.1 WAR but very poor baserunning numbers). We’ll see I guess.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
I'm
projecting Grandal to still have a decent chance to bust. I think people undersell the difficulty of transitioning from AAA to MLB. Grandal doesn’t have any huge warning flags, and certainly catching is one of the most forgiving positions as far as offensive requirements, but at the same time, it’s not like his season last year made me go, "wow, Grandal sure is a lock to be a MLB caliber starting catcher because of his ability to hit for average/his ISO/his plate discipline (all of which were closer to average than anything).
His ISO was solid, but nothing spectacular and it’s not like he has massive projection yet (especially when focused on the dip from A to AA) His average was buoyed by a BABIP that is most likely unsustainable, and while his plate discipline was very good, the walk rate eroded to merely acceptable at AA.
Plus, as far as run adjustment, reports this year have made me weary about Grandal’s glove while on the other hand, Alonso’s athleticism leads me to believe he can be 8 or 10 runs better than average at 1B.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Nov 17, 2025 8:23 AM EST up reply actions
The offensive requirements for a catcher is awfully low
I have a hard time seeing Grandal not making it as a starter, other than if the Reds hang onto him behind Mesoraco. Grandal doesn’t have to have massive projection because he already has approximately 20 runs of value on a 1B just in positional value. I don’t think he has to have one standout offensive tool/skill here since he projects to be above average for his position in all three triple slash catgories. I think you’re making a little too much of either his Cal League numbers or you’re overlooking the difference in Cal vs. Southern League run environments as well as the jump to AA being the biggest in the minors in terms of level of competition. If his numbers didn’t dip upon his promotion, we’d be discussing him a lot higher than this.
I’m also not sure where you’re getting Alonso being 8 to 10 runs better defensively, and this might be the first time I’ve seen “Alonso” and “athleticism” used together in a sentence like that.
The real point here isn’t Grandal vs. Alonso, he’s just one of 12 names I have ahead of Alonso on my hitters list. He just happens to be the guy in the same farm system and made a good example. There are plenty of cases that could be made for players with drastically higher ceilings than Alonso, this just seems much too early for a high floor/lower ceiling hitter who happens to be a 1B.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 2:36 PM EST up reply actions
Evaluating Alonso on ceiling alone isn't the best way to go
He probably has an EXPECTATION of a 3.5 WAR player. That is the equivalent of a top 6 or 7 catcher. That’s his expectation. His floor is about 2.5 WAR at this point. Yeah, his ceiling isn’t all that much higher than his expectation. He isn’t someone you can dream on, he is someone you can COUNT on. I like Grandal a lot too, so if Grandal is your #1 guy, and Alonso is your #2 guy left, that isn’t really knocking Alonso much.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 10:35 AM EST up reply actions
+1
Well said
" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin
by casejud on Nov 17, 2025 11:33 AM EST up reply actions
Positional Adjustment
I’m of the opinion that positional adjustment is the kind of converstaion that should be rightfully reserved for major league players.
Its the kind of argument that leads to absurd conclusions when discussing guys with whom there is still doubt on whether they will actually HIT or not.
It leads to things like Jose Inglesias being considered a consensus 37th best prospect last year and, Brett Lawrie being the 42nd best - shamefull stuff like that.
" It's never just a game when you're winning" - George Carlin
by casejud on Nov 17, 2025 11:56 AM EST up reply actions
While I had Lawrie about 50 spots higher than Iglesias
I’m not sure your example really has anything to do with the Alonso-Grandal example I used above. There is nothing close to the offensive disparity between Lawrie and Iglesias present between Alonso and Grandal, and the positional adjustment is even wider in the second case than in your example.
It’s not a conversation that should be used just for major league players, it just needs to be used more judiciously with prospects, especially if there is a question of one player hitting or not.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 2:45 PM EST up reply actions
It's a lot easier
to find a guy to post a 2.5 WAR season at 1B than it is to find that can do it as a catcher, especially since there are plenty of COF types that could move to 1B and post those numbers. I don’t believe anyone was evaluating Alonso strictly on ceiling, I know I wasn’t and I don’t think McCutchen was either. I was taking a stab at what McCutchen would consider Alonso’s ceiling, and showing how it’s not that high to offset his fairly low floor when you consider the positional difference. Maybe he expects even more from Alonso than what I mention above, if so, that’s pretty optimistic IMO but would go a long way in his choice here.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
well
i expect 3.5 WAR on average, right from the start…though that assumes he’s playing 1B. i would be surprised if he is as low as 2.5 for more than an occasion weak season, but it is a reasonable floor, so i wouldn’t be floored. what is xander bogaerts floor? it is easy to find a 0 or negative WAR floor guy, much easier than finding a 2.5 WAR floor guy. if you EXPECT Xander to average better than a 3.5 WAR, like you’d bet money he had a 25+ WAR career, assuming no horrible horrible injury, then fine. I’m sure you think Xander’s upside must be a 7 or 8 WAR guy or something like that. But even if you do think that, you know he has a chance to bust, and your expectation of him can’t be much higher than 3.5 WAR. If someone think Bogaerts doesn’t quite have 7 or 8 WAR upside, they really will have a hard time picking him over Alonso.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 3:08 PM EST up reply actions
Not really
7 to 8 WAR is a top 3-5 hitter in the majors, that’s what you project for a guy like Harper or Trout maybe as a top prospect. For Bogaerts, I’d say his ceiling is maybe in the 5 to 6 win range. Yes, I’m bullish on the guy but the scouting reports are great, he had a great peformance this year and he’s only expected to move off of SS because he may outgrow it. Time will tell if that’s the right call or not, but Alonso doesn’t offer enough upside to rank that high, even with his high floor.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 4:05 PM EST up reply actions
?
WAR takes into account positional scarcity
assuming WAR theory is correct, then it’s definitionally equally likely to find a 2.5 WAR 1B as it is to find a 2.5 WAR C
by blue bulldog on Nov 17, 2025 3:47 PM EST up reply actions
If that was the case
why do we see teams running out such bad options behind the plate? The defensive demands of the position are such that you can’t just move anyone there and expect things to translate over like you could more safely assume with a CF moving to a corner. It’s so much more difficult to move up the defensive spectrum than down, the pool of players that you could really play at C day in and day out is much smaller than the pool you could draw on to play 1B.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 4:21 PM EST up reply actions
You are making a fine case...
For Grandal. Maybe I’ll move him up a bit my rankings.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 4:25 PM EST up reply actions
again
i am just explaining that you are using WAR wrong. if you think WAR’s positional adjustment is correct (and you can make an argument it isn’t, though it would require quite a bit of evidence for you to convince me)
then it’s equally easy to find a James Loney to play at 1B, as it is to find a Kurt Suzuki to play at C. that is, definitionally speaking, what WAR is trying to accomplish when they say that both Kurt Suzuki and James Loney have 2.2-2.3 WAR as players
by blue bulldog on Nov 17, 2025 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
I think he's saying something a little different
He is saying there are fewer players that can fill the C position and get you 2.5 WAR then there are 1B types.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 6:56 PM EST up reply actions
Exactly
If it was that easy to fill the C spot, why wouldn’t teams be able to do that consistently?
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 17, 2025 10:56 PM EST up reply actions
no
what you guys are saying is the exact same thing i’m saying
WAR’s positional adjustment is there because it’s adjusting for position scarcity
again, there may be something wrong with the positional adjustment. maybe the guys at Fangraphs are underestimating the scarcity of catchers relative to that of 1B. but i sort of doubt it. just look at the example.
i don’t think it’s a stretch of logic, to say that finding a Kurt Suzuki to fill the C position is as easy as finding a James Loney to fill the 1B position.
by blue bulldog on Nov 18, 2025 3:20 AM EST up reply actions
Really?
Just looking quickly at the last ten years on fangraphs leaderboard, every year there have been more 1B with a WAR of 2.0 or more than their have been catchers. It’s an average of ~18 1B with that production vs. ~13 catchers. But…that doesn’t include all of the other players playing other positions that could post that same 2.0 WAR at 1B. With the skill set for catchers being so specific and different from any other position, you don’t have the same luxury of pulling a player from another position and plugging him in like you do at 1B. Aging 3B and OF can transition to 1B, you don’t see them becoming catchers in their 30’s.
I don’t see any possible way to believe that it’s as easy to find a 2 WAR catcher as you’re claiming.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 18, 2025 4:35 AM EST up reply actions
disagree
if you look at the fangraphs leaderboard and sort instead of using players, but through teams, the differences pretty much disappear
i only had time to look at 2009-2011, but the number of teams that have WAR of 2.0 or higher at 1B is about the same as the number of teams that have WAR of 2.0 or higher at C
this pretty much shows that there is not a problem for plugging in players at C relative to 1B
by blue bulldog on Nov 18, 2025 12:44 PM EST up reply actions
No it doesn't
Your original argument was you could “find a Kurt Suzuki to fill the C position as easy as finding a James Loney to fill the 1B position”. That’s one player, not a platoon of two or more catchers to achieve the WAR total, a wholly different argument.
Beyond that, you’re still ignoring the large pool of players at other positions you can plug into 1B and get the same level of production as a James Loney(or better). With the C position you’re basically eliminating a subset of players right off the bat with players that throw lefthanded, so right there we prove in one small way it’s not as easy to plug in a player there as it is at 1B.
That doesn’t even get into the skill set issues for a catcher, the decline in offensive value due to wear and tear/physicality and fewer PA’s, or the level to which a player’s defense would offset his offensive contributions. There is a reason why there is such a small group of good players behind the plate, if it was as easy as you say teams would just stick better hitters back there to gain an advantage there.
http://bullpenbanter.com
RIP Randy "Macho Man" Savage
by gatling on Nov 18, 2025 2:16 PM EST up reply actions
IF!
We end up doing a 3-way runoff, after 24 hours have expired, people seem to favor doing one where we rank the 3 players, so we don’t need to do a 2nd runoff like the Bundy/Taillon/Hultzen one. If we do that, there are still several ways to declare a winner.
Basically, we could either start by adding up the 1st place votes to settle it, like we normally would be a 3 way runoff, and if another two-way runoff would be needed, we’d already have the votes to determine the winner in that case. If somehow that wasn’t too definitive (like with the Taillion/Bundy/Hultzen race), we could check it against a points based ranking system (3 points for 1st, 2 for 2nd, 1 for 3rd), to see if that could break a tie. If not, just go with the results of the 2 way runoff. If the 1st place votes didn’t create any separation at all, we could move to the points system to hopefully help break the tie.
Or, we could start with the points system, see if that helps declare a clear winner, and if it doesn’t, move to the traditional 3 way runoff with 1st place votes, then 2 way runoff if needed, as described in the paragraph above.
Neither system is any more complicated or time consuming than the other. Neither system will force us to open an additional poll to figure things out further. We’ll have all the needed info, and the calculations will take a few minutes. So that is not a factor. It just comes down to whether people think 1st place votes should be the main determining factor (as we traditionally have done in these polls), or whether a 3-2-1 ranking system should be the main determining factor (instead of just as a last resort tie-breaker).
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 12:20 PM EST reply actions
Actually, I think we could just list our first and second place votes
If needed, that should add enough separation if the top two are tied.
by cookiedabookie on Nov 17, 2025 12:23 PM EST up reply actions
True
If we list 1st and 2nd place votes, it doesn’t take a master detective to figure out who the 3rd place vote would go to.
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Either way the question remains
Start with adding up 1st place votes, or start by adding up 1st and 2nd place votes (2 points for 1st, 1 point for 2nd, 0 points for 3rd) or (3-2-1 which is the same thing)?
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 12:26 PM EST up reply actions
Start with 1st place, go to second place if too close
by cookiedabookie on Nov 17, 2025 12:56 PM EST up reply actions
Closing the poll...
We are going to do a 3-way runoff with Alonso (16 votes), Starling (15 votes), and Lindor (14 votes).
by auclairkeithbc on Nov 17, 2025 5:09 PM EST reply actions
Something to say? Choose one of these options to log in.
- » Create a new SB Nation account
- » Already registered with SB Nation? Log in!
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
- Start posting on Minor League Ball
- Minor League Ball on Facebook
- Follow @MinorLeagueBall
- Follow Minor League Ball on your iPhone!
- Subscribe to Minor League Ball Stories
Related FanPosts on Minor League Ball
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
When Comic-Book Characters Field And Pitch
Carlos Zambrano Hit In Face By Line Drive In Venezuela
Xavier Paul's Down ... But Hardly Out
More from Baseball Nation >
Certain photos copyright © 2011 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
