Interview with Kevin Goldstein
After seeing the lengthy discussion on this diary and the fanboy fawning of this post, Kevin Goldstein from Baseball Prospectus graciously offered to answer any additional questions about San Francisco prospects. I e-mailed some of the prospect mavens here for help with the questions, and Steve S. and Brute Sentiment contributed some great questions. Thanks to everyone for their help, and thanks to Kevin for taking time out of his hectic schedule to do this.
Remember: Subscribe to Baseball Prospectus for one year, and receive a McCovey Chronicles membership for free. Free!
Kevin Goldstein: That's kind of the secret sauce in many ways. Ranking prospect combines two things - predicting a player's ultimate ceiling and crossing that with a players chances of actually reaching that ceiling. It's really different for every guy and you have to develop a feel for it really. That said, scouting a player development is really not in any way about creating replacement-level players. Those types of talents are still pretty affordable on the open market. It's about finding impact talent that can make that impact on the big league level before being arbitration/free agent eligible.
McC: I kind of skimmed that answer looking for Kevin Frandsen's name. Even if his ceiling is somewhere between Ron Belliard and Mike Lansing, wouldn't that still be a valuable player to have for the MLB minimum? How close was he to the list?
KG: He was as close as one could get. If I Spinal Tapped the list and went to 11, Frandsen would be there. He's a nice lilttle hitter, and his makeup is off the charts, but at the same time, he really has no secondary skills at all, so he needs to hit .300 to be an everyday player, and I don't see it. I think he'll have a career as a bench player/occasional starter - which goes back to my last answer.
McC: Was Billy Sadler's AFL performance what put him above Brian Wilson?
KG: Well, It certainly helped, but it's not the sole reason. I really like his stuff, because when I talk to scouts, they tend to really like his stuff. I just see him becoming a late-inning reliever more than I see Wilson there.
McC: The Sharlon Schoop ranking was probably the most surprising to me. Was it personal observation or a particular opinion among those you talked to that put him so high?
KG: Personal observation is difficult - I'm really not capable of seeing everyone, obviously. For the most part I'm trying to talk to scouts and people within the game nearly every day. One person saw Schoop in the AFL and another saw him in instructs and both walked away very impressed.
McC: How much emphasis do you put on a prospect repeating a level?
KG: Usually quite a bit - that's USUALLY a bad thing unless there's some obvious mitigating factor revolving around injury or age.
McC: The "Big Picture"-feature at the end of your list helped make a distinction between lackluster farm systems and farm systems that were hurt because top prospects graduated. If the list were extended to 27-year-olds, where would players like Noah Lowry, Todd Linden, Brad Hennessey, and Kevin Correia rank in the big picture for the Giants?
KG: That is a very good question, and my honest answer is I DON'T KNOW. I haven't done enough research or talking to people about them to accurately ranking them. Interestingly enough, I was personally surprised when I talked to other people about the Giants system and found that there are some people out there who still have hope for Todd Linden.
McC: The success story is Miguel Cabrera; the horror story is Jackson Melian. How does Angel Villalona stack up with other international bonus babies at the same age?
KG Um, right there with both? That's the good and bad news, obviously. It seems pretty clear that Villalona was the best of the international free agents this year, but yes, he's 16, so there's obvious risk involved.
McC: With Schoop and Emmanuel Burriss, the Giants have some interesting and athletic middle infield prospects. But one year's athletic middle infield prospect can be next year's Marcus Sanders, who had one of the most disappointing seasons in the organization. What kind of season would it take for him to reappear on the top-ten list?
KG: A very big one. I was personally never THAT high on him in the first place. If I had did a SF top 10 last year, he would have been on it, but towards the bottom. It's pretty clear at this point that he can't play on the left side of the infield, so right now he's a guy who can draw walks and run, and that's it.
McC: What put Fred Lewis over Nate Schierholtz in the rankings?
KG: Versatility and the fact that while he doesn't have any overwhelming strengths in his game, he really has no weaknesses either. We're back to that balance thing. I think Schierholtz has a bit of a better chance at being a star, while Lewis has a much better chance at having a lengthy career - if that makes sense.
McC: I'm fascinated with the non-prospects who put up good numbers; call it Robbie Crabtree Sickness. So is there any room for growth for Brian Horwitz or Adam Cowart? Is there any hope for Horwitz to add some doubles power, or for Cowart to find a few feet on his fastball?
KG: Horwitz is a guy with some nice hitting skills, but he really doesn't have anything close to the power to be a corner outfielder in the big leagues. Cowart had such a great debut, but that's all about command and control, which Cowart has in bunches. He really doesn't have projection, and I wouldn't think of him as one of the top 25 prospects in the system. 82-85 mph fastballs don't get anyone into the big leagues.
McC: What do you know about Nick Pereria? He seemed to be on the Kevin Correia fast track for some reason, but was slapped around in AAA.
KG: He's very much like Cowart, at least in the sense that his success at San Jose was more about outstanding location than anything else. He does has a good slider, but his fastball is below average, which hurts his projection, as is the reason AAA hitters feasted on him. With some adjustments, he could become a reliever.
McC: It has been written in some McCovey Chronicles prospect threads that there really isn't much of a difference between the #4 prospect in the system and #34. How close is that tongue-in-cheek assessment?
KG: It's obviously aggrandizing reality a bit, but there's always some truth in something like that. I think there's more separation at the top, but there's probably six or seven guys you could make a perfectly good argument for being ranked in the 8-10 range, and probably 10-15 guys who I wouldn't put in their top 20, but others would. There's a bell curve from Excellent to Very Good, to Good to Average for sure.
McC: Tim Lincecum: Great prospect, or the greatest prospect? What are the odds he remains a starter?
KG: The fact that the Giants decided to leave him in the minors last year when he could have helped them out of the bullpen tells you they want to keep him as a starter. Great prospect, not the greatest, but when our book comes out, he'll rank VERY high in my Top 100.
0 recs |
30 comments
Comments
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by MeSoKrabby on Jan 6, 2007 2:12 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
Did anyone else have problems with that payment system?
by BruteSentiment on Jan 6, 2007 2:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by mxmob33 on Jan 7, 2007 9:58 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
That said, I still disagree quite a bit about the Kevin Frandsen and Brian Wilson projections, and think there's a little bit of 'Things that make you go Hmm' when it comes to his explanation about why Frandsen didn't make the list....but Lewis did, and ranked relatively highly. Lewis's inability to play center seems like a pretty big weakness to me, especially considering his offensive game is only slightly better suited for a corner outfielder than Horwitz's.
But then, I bet when I put up my next grouping of Giants prospects for debate, I'll get ripped and rankled for it. And that's just when discussing where the pride of Sonoma State ended up on it.
by BruteSentiment on Jan 6, 2007 2:30 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by English Professor on Jan 6, 2007 3:16 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
And it's a strength of Frandsen and a weakness of Lewis, in my experience of watching both.
I guess it brings up the question of what are the secondary skills, and what are the gaps?
Speed: Obviously, this is Lewis' advantage, and by a wider margin, but Lewis has not taken full advantage of his skills.
OBP: Reality check time - Kevin Frandsen's minor league total is higher than Lewis' (.383 to .382). I can hear the counter being "Oh, but Frandsen's is average supported, rather than Lewis' ability to draw walks." Yea, well, a walk and a hit is the same in regards to how it counts in OBP. And what's more, if you don't expect Frandsen's career .321 BA to hold up in the majors, how can you expect more of Lewis' .281?
Power: Reality check time - Frandsen's .453 minor league career slugging percentage is much, much higher than Lewis' .409. And that one's not even close. Yes, again, Frandsen's is batting average and doubles supported, but again, where is Lewis' going to go? He hit 12 in a power friendly league, he won't match that in the majors. Lewis might be more productive in triples, but he won't get many triples if he can't bat more than .250.
The thing about 'secondary skills' are that they don't mean too much if the primary skills aren't there. And I just don't see Lewis having the ability to hit enough to be a major leaguer, nor the ability to play center field defensively to be worth anything.
He's Randy Winn without the power, at best. And that's not a starter or a long career, in my mind. Most people here don't seem to think Winn, with the power, should be a starter right now.
by BruteSentiment on Jan 6, 2007 3:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Frandsen vs Lewis
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 6, 2007 4:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
Lewis: .276/.375/.453 in 439 AB
Frand: .304/.358/.440 in 293 AB
Lewis is 1.5 years older than Frandsen. It strikes me that if you want to compare their career minor league SLG, then it strikes me that you need to acknowledge that Lewis has spent a lot more time in more pitcher-friendly leagues on the East Coast. How much would it help Lewis's career numbers if we did not include his Hagerstown numbers? And I think you could exclude those in a reasonable comparison because Lewis spent three years in college and then went to the SAL while Frandsen spent four years in college ball and went straight to the Cal League.
One way in which the two players are very different is their strikeout rates. Frandsen has perhaps the lowest in the organization. Lewis remains among the highest.
Incidentally, the Randy Winn comparison is an interesting one. His SLG never exceeded .425 until he reached triple-A as a 25-year-old. Like Lewis, he spent a fair amount of his college experience playing a sport other than baseball. Winn's career SLG in the the majors (.421) is better than his career SLG in the minors (.410).
by steve S on Jan 7, 2007 7:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So......
Frandsen is younger, makes better contact, and plays the infield.
Lewis' career numbers are dragged down by playing in the east, has a slightly better OBP/SLG% and might project to be Randy Winn.
Looks pretty even to me, although I'd give a slight edge to Frandsen based on age, position and ability to make contact.
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 7, 2007 7:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: So......
by sharksrog on Jan 10, 2007 5:30 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
EL Numbers:
Lewis: .273/.361/.396, 512 AB
Frandsen: .287/.336/.395, 129 AB
Frandsen spent less time in the east coast leagues primarily because he performed better. He had a better year in Salem-Keizer as a rookie than Lewis did (yes, he was a year older than Lewis had been), but he didn't skip Hagerstown only because he was older. Skipping Low-A is not a common thing for 4-year college players drafted in the 10th round or later, it's something some of them earn.
The time in the EL is much more simply put: Frandsen adjusted to the EL much faster and was on the upswing when he was promoted out of there. He probably would've outslugged Lewis had he been given even just another week.
The difference in college experience is more notable and relevant, but mostly at the lower levels. As I've note before, a player's adjustment ability is a huge factor in how I rank prospects, and Lewis is in Triple-A and hasn't learned how to play center field. That isn't a slow developer, that's a non-developer IMO.
Interesting point about Winn, but a couple of other points:
- His batting average did drop about 20 points from the minors to the majors
- If it weren't for his half-season in SF in '05, his slugging percentage would be marginally lower in the majors than the minors.
Finally, the last tidbit I'll counter: The difference in the 2006 slugging in Fresno was Frandsen getting just four more bases, or Lewis getting just six less. It's not a big difference, especially if the base of this argument is the amount of secondary skills shown, and could arguably be more a result of speed than power.
by BruteSentiment on Jan 7, 2007 2:43 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
A few counterpoints ...
Maybe Frandsen would have had a higher SLG in the Eastern League if he had spent more time there. Then again, Frandsen didn't have to play in the Eastern League in April and May. For various reasons, it has been noted that Lewis had much better numbers in the second half in the Eastern League that year than in the first half (although that is more about AVG than secondary average as I recall).
Did Frandsen really have a better stint in the NWL? That surprised me given that Lewis was the league batting champ. Here are their stats:
Lewis 2002: .322/.396/.397 in 239 AB
Frand 2004: .296/.369/.439 in 98 AB
The OPS are nearly equal. Lewis was a bit younger when he was in the league. Frandsen's season was cut short by his collarbone injury. One could argue that perhaps Frandsen's rate stats are a bit inflated in this comparison since it seems that often hitters do very well in the first few weeks of the NWL before top pitchers have joined the league and/or have their workloads stretched back out.
In regards to the statement that "skipping low-A is not a common thing for 4-year college players drafted in the 10th round or later," I think that statement is a bit misleading. How many 4-year college players get drafted in the first four rounds, six rounds or nine rounds? It's common for 4-year college players to go to low-A for the same reason that they played college ball for 4 years instead of 3 years--they generally don't have the tools that make them a real prospect. The 3-year college players who do tend to go low-A are the guys who generally come from the less competitive college ranks (e.g., Fred Lewis, probably Emmanuel Burriss).
by steve S on Jan 8, 2007 9:18 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by sharksrog on Jan 10, 2007 5:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by Dan from NM on Jan 6, 2007 2:39 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by sharksrog on Jan 10, 2007 5:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Not on my banana split, thank you
by Moggeee on Jan 14, 2007 12:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by Sinister Dick on Jan 6, 2007 4:32 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
Here is one possibility for the Giants OFs:
MLB: Bonds, Roberts, Winn, Linden, Klesko
AAA: Lewis, Ellison, Ortmeier, ??
AA: EME, Timpner, Schierholtz, Horwitz, Foster
A+: Copeland, Richardson, Mooney, Bowker
A-: McBryde, Weston, Graham, Felmy
Others (with experience at ssA or higher): Requena, Wagner, Sosa, Dobson, Salsgiver, Yens, Neal
by steve S on Jan 8, 2007 9:31 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by Roger on Jan 8, 2007 10:12 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
Note: Niekro is in a similar position, and this may also affect where Ishikawa is assigned to begin the season. I think Ishikawa is going back to Connecticut, though, since the Giants resigned Chad Santos.
by steve S on Jan 8, 2007 12:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by Roger on Jan 8, 2007 12:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
Nate has the arm for right field, although not the range in The Booth. So he's probably a left fielder (just as Eddie Martinez-Esteve is ideally a designated hitter). But with Barry's money it would seem the Giants could perhaps find a right fielder to complement Nate. And certainly Todd can play right.
IMO the reason the Giants have "buried" their everyday prospects is that they were mostly suspects. At this point Nate Schierholtz is still a prospect. He was poor early in his move to AA, but he came on strongly at the end.
Hopefully Nate can combine the strength of his dad with the lightness of his marathon-running mom. And while I doubt Nate would consider the idea, I do have a friend of his supposedly putting the bug in his ear that a return to the catcher's mask he wore less than a decade ago might increase his value. Can you think of a better way to make the major leagues than as a lefthanded-hitting catcher? There just aren't many around -- and they would be SO useful for platoons.
Speaking of which, Bengie Molina DESTROYED lefty pitching last season. This year with the likely necessity of facing more righties, I don't expect him to have quite as big a year with the bat. And to make matters worse, Bengie's defense has fallen precipitously from his Gold Glove years of 2002 and 2003. He is said to have gotten himself into far better shape, so perhaps that will help him on both sides of the plate.
by sharksrog on Jan 10, 2007 5:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
And Grant keep on chugging along.
by z4 landshark on Jan 6, 2007 9:33 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
4 and 34
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 7, 2007 7:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Shape of the Curve
by DrBGiantsfan on Jan 8, 2007 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: 4 and 34
The difference I see in Jonathan (who threw four no-hitters in college) and Clay is that Jonathan appears on the brink of becoming an important major-league player, while Clayton is likely at least three or four years away. A lot can go wrong in that time, including injury. So while I suspect the potentials of the two are somewhat similar (and I have great hope for both), Jonathan would be my higher prospect due to the greater likelihood of his reaching that potential.
Keep a close eye on Clayton though. My friend who coached him (at De La Salle High) likes him a lot. Clayton pitched well in short-season A ball at only 18 years of age. He didn't make Kevin Goldstein's top ten prospects, but he was listed immediately thereafter as "the sleeper," a pitcher who projects well but is many seasons away.
by sharksrog on Jan 10, 2007 5:42 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by Skaldheim on Jan 7, 2007 9:47 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
by BruteSentiment on Jan 7, 2007 2:14 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re: Interview with Kevin Goldstein
Incidentally, it was only Class A, but Timmy struck out 47.5% of the batters he faced in his initial season of pro ball -- and gave up only one line drive.
How do YOU spell dominance? Incidentally, that was more than 20% above Johan Santana and over 15% above (gulp) Francisco Liriano.
by sharksrog on Jan 10, 2007 5:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

by 


















