Top Giants Prospects, nonGroupthink edition expanded and revised
by kennv on Jan 11, 2009 8:36 PM PST
85 comments
Way back in December of 2008, I put up this fanpost so that we, the McCoven, could express our individual views of the top 10 Giants Prospects in comparison with the our McCovey Chronicles Community Pospect List. As the Community Prospect List winds down it seems like a good time to revisit the idea.
Before the top-10 lists that were posted showed the main points of disagreement were minor order squibbles between the top-4 guys and then the 4-8 guys and then deciding who made the cut for the top ten. Pucetas or Barnes? Kieschnick or Ishikawa? I think this time we will see some new trends develop. (that is if anyone participates....) Do relievers belong in a the top 20? How do you seperate out the group of starters that began the season in San Jose? Age and Level? Potential versus Proximity? I think we'll see some patterns emerge that resulted from voting system where under 25% of the vote could win the spot. And of course, with more spots available than when we posted top-10s, we should see more widely varied results.
And, maybe you've changed your mind since voting in the polls. Have the discussions here swayed you? Perdomo who? What's a Jesus "Raptor" Guzman? Did John Sickels sway you with his top 20?
So post your list of top prospects and go as high as you would like. Maybe explain your ranking decisions, or maybe let us guess at your ranking criteria and philosophy. This is also the time for those 15 people that have been voting for McBryde for 20 rounds to put him where he BELONGS! A chance for EME to be ranked either 10th or off the list entirely. What sort of idiot would rank Snyder 19 spots below Pucetas!!!!1! Remember voting for that one guy in poll after poll until the rest of us finally got there? Well now put him in your list where you want and move on. Simple.
Let it all out. Be an individual! Respect to the group, but let's see what YOU think.
This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.
4 recs |
85 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Top 15
1. Bumgarner
2. Alderson
3. Villalona
4. Posey
5. Ishikawa
6. Noonan
7. Barnes
8. Sosa
9. Gillaspie
10. EME
11. Martinez
12. Neal
13. Tanner
14. Pucetas
15. Adrianza
Love pitching and players with some history of production. Place a huge value on production at AA and above. Expect some growth for Villalona in 2009 followed by a huge breakout season in 2010.
by wilriv21 on Jan 11, 2009 9:23 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I was hoping you'd post this:
1. Lucy Lui
2. Jane Seymour
3. Roselyn Sanchez
4. Christy Canyon
5. Jessica Yellin
6. Heaven – Los Angeles
7. The City
8. SS Posey
9. OF EME
10. 2b Frandsen
by xanthan on Jan 12, 2009 5:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Christy Canyon
Teenage ME applauds that!
You probably know it as MYANMAR, but it will always be BURMA to me!
by NuschlerFace on Jan 12, 2009 11:02 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FYI
Christy’s real name is Missy — I went to high school with her and her sister (who’s cuter btw)
by LAGiantsFan on Jan 12, 2009 3:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. My teen and early 20s self is agog.
Christy/Missy was one of my absolute favorite, uh, models, so her sister must be quite, quite lovely.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jan 12, 2009 3:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Well, she’s 45 now and I haven’t seen her in a few years…
by LAGiantsFan on Jan 12, 2009 6:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That's ok: I'm 43 now. If you attend the h.s. reunion, find out if she digs mayors.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jan 12, 2009 7:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I have good news and bad news...
Good news: yes, she does dig mayors.
Bad news: word on the street is that Mayor of 459 is way hotter than you.
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 13, 2009 5:44 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I saw the Mayor of 311 on the news this morning (I think), can the Mayor of 459 claim to be a famous jury consultant?
We're all basically Pedro Feliz.
by SF Pete on Jan 13, 2009 12:03 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Wow. You're absolutely right. That was me. How did you know that?
Not only that, there is no section 459, or if there is some ballpark that has a section 459, those are some CRAPPY seats.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jan 15, 2009 12:33 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I just remembered what you look from the pics posted on here and I remembered what you do for a living. All that was after forgetting my sister’s birthday last week. Whoops.
We're all basically Pedro Feliz.
by SF Pete on Jan 15, 2009 11:57 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
At least your priorities are in order. Impressive memory.
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jan 15, 2009 12:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I can’t stop thinking of Christy Canyon
by wilriv21 on Jan 13, 2009 3:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
FYI
If we’re going to worship her…her name is Lucy Liu
Leading the Pro-Aaron Rowand contingent on the McC!
You can ridicule me in 2009 if you like...
by ThrillisGone22 on Jan 13, 2009 8:01 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My Top Giants Prospects List
my ramblings continue.
1. SP Madison Bumgarner
2. "C" Buster Posey
3. SP Tim Alderson
4. 1B Angel Villalona – can’t believe he "down" to #4
5. 1B Travis Ishikawa – I went too high here, maybe. Proximity pick, but could be HR leader on a weak Giants Team.
6. 3B Conor Gillaspie
7. 2B Nick Noonan
8. SP Henry Sosa – I’m worried about the injury, but even then… who goes above him?
9. OF Rafael Rodriguez –all scouting hysteria mystery, but could rise quickly
10. OF Wendell Fairley – toolz
11. OF Roger Kieschnick – dingerz
12. SP Scott Barnes
13. SP Jesse English
14. SP Kevin Pucetas
15. SP Clayton Tanner – maybe this SP crew should all be tied. this is just my order or preference.
16. SS Brandon Crawford
17. 3B Jesus Guzman
18. SP Joseph Martinez
19. SS Ehire Adrianza – Another scout hysteria pick
20. UT Matt Downs
20 OF/1B Thomas Neal
22. RP Edwin Quirarte
22. RP Luis Perdomo
22. P Jose Casilla
25. SP Aaron King
25. SP Waldis Joaquin
27. SP Ben Snyder – should be higher, but I’m worried about his small sample in AA.
28. OF Michael McBryde – defense
29. RP Osiris Matos
29. RP Kelvim Pichardo
Are ties a cop out? Sure.
Castillo got the DFA. Guestimate for Castillo DFA to come before the 2009 season = 2.
by kennv on Jan 11, 2009 9:24 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
and here I thought I was the one who drank too deeply of the TI Kool-Aid.
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
by oldjacket on Jan 11, 2009 9:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
1. Buster Posey
2. Madison Bumgarner
3. Angel Villalona
4. Tim Alderson
5. Conor Gillaspie
6. Nick Noonan
7. Rafael Rodriguez
8. Henry Sosa
9. Roger Kieshnick
10. Scott Barnes
11. Kevin Pucetas
12. Travis Ishikawa
13. Clayton Tanner
14. Brandon Crawford
15. Ehire Adrianza
16. Michael McBryde
17. Wendell Fairley
18. Jesse English
19. Ben Snyder
20. Jesus Guzman
21. Thomas Neal
22. Luis Perdomo
23. Joseph Martinez
24. Hector Sanchez
25. Osiris Matos
26. Aaron King
27. Edwin Quirate
28. Kelvin Pichardo
29. Mike Loree
30. Jason Jarvis
by Grant on Jan 11, 2009 10:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Things I like
I like that you placed Gerald ahead of Mad Bum. Mad Bum has a very high ceiling, but TINSTAAPP.
Because I think Tim Alderson will defy TINSTAAPP, although not nearly to the same extent as Tim Lincecum defied TINSTAAPP, giving that the original Tim’s doing so was almost a no-brainer, I would place him above Angel Villalona’s higher ceiling.
Jesus Guzman probably has helped his prospect status by hitting nearly as well as Pablo Sandoval in the Venezuelan Winter League, posting an OPS of over 1.000 both against right-handers and against left-handers in doing so. (Meanwhile, Pablo’s OPS is once again more than 400 points higher against righties than southpaws.) Jesus isn’t good with the glove, but he HAS played some second base — as well as a few games at first base, shortstop and in the outfield. Should he be thrown into the second-base battle if the Giants pick up another corner infielder and into both the third-base and second-base frays if they don’t?
by sharksrog on Jan 12, 2009 1:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know the Buster over Madison move isn’t all the rage yet, but I think it will be around June.
I could invert 11-21 (and 22-30, for that matter) and be just as satisfied with my list. I’d keep Guzman at third because it’s possible that Sandoval is a Brenly-type disaster at third, and there isn’t anyone else in the high minors.
Jesus isn’t good with the glove
I know. It’s like he has holes in his hands, or something.
/slowly walks away from thread
by Grant on Jan 12, 2009 3:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I know. It’s like he has holes in his hands, or something.
/golf clap
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 12, 2009 3:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The golf clap is even quieter than usual, because, well, you know...
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jan 12, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
How Could...
I have missed this the other day. Stil at work getting ready for a meeting, but that made LMFAO .
Bravo SIr !! Bravo !!
"Just take the ball and throw it where you want to. Throw strikes. Home plate don't move."-Leroy "Satchel" Paige
My adopted son Matt Downs . Utility Infielder with a Bat !
by nvsfg on Jan 14, 2009 6:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Finally, someone who properly values Matt Downs! (Hides from Lyle)
by Dan from NM on Jan 12, 2009 9:38 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dan...
You should also hide from me. I know where you live. Well, the state anyway.
"Just take the ball and throw it where you want to. Throw strikes. Home plate don't move."-Leroy "Satchel" Paige
My adopted son Matt Downs . Utility Infielder with a Bat !
by nvsfg on Jan 14, 2009 6:05 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Double Plus Good
We are at war with Los Angeles. We have always been at war with Los Angeles.
Fred Lewis can stand under my umbrella.
31 May 2007, 21:38 EST - the last time Matteh's career W-L wasn't below.500
by S.F. Giangst on Jan 12, 2009 5:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
Let me explain my view; I’m trying to balance raw potential with likelihood of contributing at the ML level. RaRod and AnVil have tons of potential, but I can’t yet give them high marks for likelihood (and in RaRod’s case, I refuse to rank him until I see some performances). I suspect this means that my list leans slightly away from high upside guys that most of you seem to prefer. That’s just my bias. On the other hand, I suppose my list would be more volatile; for example, if RaRod has a great year wherever he’s assigned, he would jump onto my list, and probably to a pretty high level. I’d love to rank AnVil #1, but I need to see another year or two of steady increase before I can rank him ahead of these other three guys. I think he has the highest upside of the top four, I just think he’s the least likely to reach that potential in the bigs. So,
1. C Buster Posey
2. SP Tim Alderson (one level higher than MadBum sways me; this could certainly change after the 2009 season).
3. SP Madison Bumgarner
4. 1B Angel Villalona
5. 2B/SS Nick Noonan
6. SP Kevin Pucetas (lower ceiling, higher probability than most)
7. 3B Conor Gillaspie
8. SP Scott Barnes
9. SP Henry Sosa
10. 2B Matt Downs
11. 1B Travis Ishikawa (low-ish ceiling, but he’ll be in the majors in 2009)
12. SP Jesse English
13. SP Daryl Maday
14. SP Kyle Nicholson
15. C Hector Sanchez
16. SS Ehire Adrianza
17. SP Clayton Tanner
18. RP Edwin Quirarte
19. 3B Jesus Guzman
20. OF Roger Kieschnick
21. SP Joe Martinez
22. RP Osiris Matos
23. SS Brandon Crawford
24. SP Craig Clark
25. SP Ben Snyder
26. 1B/OF Thomas Neal
27. OF Wendell Fairley
28. OF Sundrendy Windster
29. 3B Josh Mazzola
30. SP Waldis Joaquin
Flame away!
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 12, 2009 9:39 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
"Your list... rocks!"
"he walked 18; new league record! Struck out 18, another new league record! He also hit the sportswriter, the PA announcer, the bull mascot twice..."
by i did my job on Jan 12, 2009 10:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, I choose to read it that way too.
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 12, 2009 1:41 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Without taking you specifically to task, Lyle, I wonder about the logic that we frequently see implicitly around here, when discussing prospects, that players with lower ceilings have a higher probability of reaching them. I have to say the logic behind that assumption really escapes me. While abilities naturally vary tremendously in a range of players, I can’t see how the likelihood of reaching say 90-100% of one’s physical potential would vary much at all (particularly when keeping in mind the extraordinary accomplishment that reaching a “low ceiling” actually represents, ie a several year major league career).
I think there’s a flawed analogy that lays behind this assumption. Crudely put: I have two siblings. Sibling A is a bit of a dumbard that will be doing very well if they can get some sort of Admin job for life; Sibling B is a genius who has a chance at winning a Nobel Award someday. Clearly Sibling A has a much greater chance of achieving his/her ceiling than Sibling B does, but that’s only because the world contains so many millions more admin jobs than it does Nobel Prize winners. In the case of MLB players the opposite is true, there aren’t more opportunities for the low ceiling guys, there’s less because they’re competing for jobs not only against all the other low ceiling guys, but against the high ceiling ones, too, and more than that against all the low and high ceilinged guys for the last 15-20 years as well.
My personal preference for high ceiling guys is in fact based on this very premise: that high ceiling and low ceiling players have about the same chance at hitting their ceilings (which I’d put at around say 1-5). But the high ceiling players obviously have a much greater margin for error, because not coming close to their ceiling can still result in a fair major league career. If say the chance of Angel Villalona becoming a HOFer is the top 1 of his personal growth pole, then he can probably still hit somewhere in the range 40% below that and have a major league career. But if Kevin Pucetas ceiling is back of the rotation starter, than he’d better hit his ceiling if he wants to collect a major league pension, because there’s not much room between hitting his ceiling and being a career minor leaguer.
Travis Ishikawa’s actually a good example, because he’s not a low ceiling potential guy at all. When he was being scouted coming out of high school he was called “a potential special bat” with 30+ HR power. His ceiling was Will Clark with a little more power. His ceiling soon became buried under an avalanche of Ks, and I don’t believe you could dig up anybody anymore who thinks he has a chance of hitting it. But because it was so high to begin with, coming nowhere close to it still has a chance to deliver a useable major league career, and has given him many many second chances that lower ceilinged guys wouldn’t get. The opposite side of the spectrum might be Pat Misch, who as recently as last off season I’d bet there were a lot of people here who would have said had a 50-75% chance of hitting his ceiling as a back of the rotation starter. But with only 11 career starts in the majors under his belt, it already looks like he’s had his opportunity for grabbing that career path and barring injuries and lucky breaks, this organization may have decided not to give him another one (nor are there any obvious slots for him to grab a bullpen job). Pat is currently teetering on the edge of the abyss that separates hitting a low ceiling perfectly and being a career minor leaguer.
I know: tl:dr
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 12, 2009 10:25 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Well, Roger,
…perhaps I am not understanding your point, but I don’t automatically think that guys with lower ceilings are more likely to reach those ceilings. I do believe that SOME of those guys are more likely to reach their ceilings than SOME of the guys with higher ceilings. I don’t think I tie the two together.
Examples:
High Potential/High Likelihood: Buster Posey, Tim Alderson
High Potential/Medium Likelihood: Madison Bumgarner, Henry Sosa
Medium Potential/High Likelihood: Scott Barnes
High Potential/Lower Likelihood: Angel Villalona, RaRod, Roger Kieschnick, Wendell Fairley
Lower Potential/High Likelihood: Matt Downs, Kevin Pucetas
Lower Potential/Lower Likelihood: David Maroul, Jake Wald, Pat Misch, etc.
Low Potential/Low Likelihood: most of the guys not on my list
Not each guy in each of these categories is equal; I’m just trying to say that I see some low ceiling guys as also having low potentials – but those are the guys that don’t make anybody’s Top 30 list. So really, we are talking about (in very general terms) 3 broad types of prospects:
1. High ceiling/High potential guys
2. High ceiling/Low potential guys
3. Medium ceiling/High potential guys
Those are the only guys that would be on our lists, don’t you agree? It’s just that we perceive different shadings of players within those categories. Angel and Madison have high ceilings; some think one player has the higher likelihood, some think the other player does.
You have a slightly different philosophy than I do, it would seem. I place value (not a huge value, but a value) on guys like Kevin Frandsen, Nate Schierholtz, Emmanuel Burriss, Kevin Pucetas, and Matt Downs. These are guys that we can get ML-average-ish goodness from, for pennies on the dollar (or thousands on the million). Being able to plug in 1 or 2 new guys like this every year helps keep the roster costs down and frees the GM to spend on a big free agent when said free agent is really worth spending on (think Vlad Guerrero or Mark Teixeira, or 1993’s Greg Maddux and Barry Bonds). If they become starters for 3-4 years and suddenly think they’re superstars, you let them test the free agent market and replace them with the next version of themselves. And that’s how, imho, you maintain a championship roster.
Too long? Apologies all around.
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 12, 2009 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
What you say here
What you say here makes good sense (as it almost always does, Lyle). I think we might benefit from one more potential level though — the level of VERY high potential.
For instance, while Tim Lincecum, Madison Bumgarner, Buster Posey, Tim Alderson and Angel Villalona would all be considered high potential, it seems to me that Lincecum was and Bumgarner is VERY high potential.
I would consider Alderson to be high potential, but not VERY high potential. Posey and Villalona I would also place in the high potential category, but Posey’s potential could improve with more power, and Villalona’s could improve with more discipline.
Of course now I am introducing yet another potential caterogy: High to very high potential. And to me that is cutting it a bit too fine. But I do think it is important to differentiate between, for instance, the Hall of Fame potential of Tim Lincecum and the All-Star potential of Matt Cain.
From today’s prospect group, I would say Madison Bumgarner has the most Hall of Fame potential, while Buster Posey likely has the highest All-Star potential. Aside from Posey, Tim Alderson might be considered to have the most potential to be a solid major leaguer for a long time.
But Alderson probably doesn’t have the upside potential Villalona does.
I guess it all comes down to trade-offs, and whether one values potential or likelihood more. Personally, since championships are won by stars and particularly superstars, I would err toward the side of potential.
Another way to look at is it, would I trade player A for player B? If so, I should probably rank player B higher than player A.
by sharksrog on Jan 12, 2009 2:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Oh absolutely
It’s almost impossible to make enough of these fine distinctions to be very precise – I was just trying to lay out general ideas. I agree that Alderson has HIGH potential, and MadBum has VERY HIGH potential. The McKamey suggestion is an excellent one (see my response below).
And I agree with you, and with Roger, that we need some of these Villalona-type VERY HIGH ceiling players in our minor leagues. Even Wendell Fairley, who I rate rather low on my list. And for the reasons you both suggest – great teams need star players.
Perhaps I fear that others undervalue the Kevin Frandsens and Nate Schierholtzs of the world: we can’t afford star players at every position; we need GOOD players at 4-6 positions.
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 12, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
To boil it all down, I suppose my feeling is that the chance of reaching one’s full potential is pretty much always a low probability and depends upon too many factors that have nothing to do with a players abilities (good luck, particularly in the forms of opportunity and health being high on the list — and not just as prospects or rookies, they need to keep on having those twin good fortunes all the way through their careers) to count of it.
While I agree that team’s definitely need cheap league average players (in fact I think they need cheap slightly above average players) I’m not sure that I would agree that Pucetas or Frandsen or Schierholtz will ever manage to be that consistently (consistently enough to some day draw a major league pension, which is a convenient dividing line that I like). Although I’m certainly prepared to hope for it.
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 12, 2009 7:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Roger
Let me see if I understand you. If we were to adopt a McKamey-style rating system, where we gave two scores to each prospect, are you saying that your range of “likelihood scores” (my terminology) would be rather small because you believe that each prospect’s chances are pretty similar?
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 13, 2009 5:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I’d say that’s probably true (in that I believe the variation of “probability” is much narrower than the variation of "ceiling"). To a certain degree there’s a caveat that the older players are, or the further along they are, the more evidence you’ve started to amass as to how close to their potential they’re going to come, but yes, I do tend to think that in all case, there’s a pretty similar chance of actualizing one’s full potential and in all cases, that chance is pretty small.
Particularly for the “low ceiling” guys, even if we can perceive in their trips through the minors, that they seem to be on a good course for obtaining that ceiling, they’ve got two huge obstacles facing them. One of course, is just the skillz issue (and the amazing amount that their major league competitors have), but the other giant one is opportunity.
If you take the examples of say Kevin Pucetas, Joey Martinez, Ben Syder, Pat Misch, and even Jesse English. Let’s say you threw a bag over all of them and said these guys all have the potential to be an average 5th starter in the major leagues. Fine. But then look at the Giants rotation. You currently have 4 starters who’s prospect ceiling was Ace, and a fifth guy (Sanchez) who’s ceiling was #2 or #3 starter. A sixth guy (Lowry) who was a first round draft choice (with all the organizational investment that entails). Add to that two hard charging teenagers coming up through the minors who’s ceilings are, again, Ace.
So how exactly are all of those back-end rotation guys going to manage to fulfill their potential. They need the right combination of events for an opening to fall to them (to them specifically, so when an injury causes a spot start to open you need to be the guy who’s rotation is on the right schedule to be called up to make it), they need to be lucky enough to succeed in a big way (because they’ll never be afforded the same number of chances to fail that a Bumgarner will) and they need to keep succeeding always, because the organization may still want to push them aside as soon as the next ace is ready (witness the Ryan Jensen saga, once upon a time). So their best hope then is to bounce around to the right organization, the right circumstance, the right time, and hope there’s no upcoming ace to displace them there, too (known as the Steve DeBerg syndrome).
To my mind, I’ve just painted a picture where it’s going to be extremely unlikely for any of that group to ever achieve their ceiling, even if you assume that they would succeed and would achieve it if given the opportunity (an assumption that I wouldn’t be wiling to make).
So, was the longest possible way to say “Yes” that you’ve ever encountered?
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 13, 2009 7:04 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
LOL
It was worth it just for the Steve DeBerg Syndrome! Nice.
I think I understand your point. Perhaps you are more of a realist than I am; I seem to be making these “likelihood” judgments in a theoretical vacuum, without regard for the exigencies of real-life major league situations, whereas you are constantly viewing the prospects’ progress with an eye toward the current and near-term-future situation of the Giants roster.
Does that sound about right?
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 13, 2009 11:13 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think that’s a fair statement. I guess I’m not looking at “could they” but “will they”. My question is: how’ve you managed to run a control room and maintain such romantic hopefulness?
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 13, 2009 1:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I’m a romantic at heart. I keep thinking the next graphics package will actually look good on air; my next supervisor will actually understand the depth of my contributions; the next switcher will actually be easier to use; and “things will be better in the new building.”
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 14, 2009 9:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The workflow is going to be so much better with the XDCam!
Get the hell out the way Bengie, Pablito's hit the show!
by Roger on Jan 14, 2009 1:04 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Direct neural implants are what I’m waiting for.
: )
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 15, 2009 4:10 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good point!
Maybe it is just your name that makes me agree with you so often, but it would seem you raise a good point here that low ceilings aren’t necessarily more reachable merely by being closer to ground level. The lower ceiling may be reachable only if another player isn’t taller. :)
I like Deric McKamey’s rating players with both a number for potential and a letter for the chance of reaching it.
The numbers go as follows:
10 — Hall of Famer
9 — Elite player
8 — Solid regular
7 — Average regular
6 — Platoon player
5 — Major league reserve
4 — Top minor leaguer
3 — Average minor leaguer
2 — Minor league reserve
1 — Minor league roster filler
And the letters:
A — 90% chance of reaching potential
B — 70% chance
C — 50/50
D — 30% chance
E — 10% chance
Perhaps applying such grades to players could make it easier to compare them.
by sharksrog on Jan 12, 2009 1:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Is Sibling A a woman? If so, does she dig mayors?
I'm adopting a true Giant and an awe-inspring gamer: tk. "Atta babe."
by Mayor of 311 on Jan 12, 2009 2:44 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Good list
Obviously NONE of us is going to agree on the ranking of anything LIKE 30 players, but I liked your list, and there were some new names on it.
I guess I could see Timmy Two above Mad Bum based on Alderson’s perhaps being only confidence in his change up away from the majors at some time in 2009 and likely less concern about his arm health, but I’m not swayed by his performing very well one level higher than Bumgarner’s almost off-the-charts performance one level lower — particularly when Mad Bum is nine months younger. My guess is that Mad Bum might perform as well in AA at age 19 as Timmy Two did in High A at the (nearly) the same age.
And while a year ago I was high on NIck Noonan, his very poor K/BB ratio this past season took a little of his luster off IMO. I would rate Gillaspie ahead of him and would even take a flyer on Rodriguez.
I am concerned with Kevin Pucetas’ giving up nine homers in 35.1 innings in the AZFL, although since he hasn’t been bothered by home runs before, it might merely indicate he was working on one pitch (which apparently wasn’t working :).
by sharksrog on Jan 12, 2009 1:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rog
Those are all good concerns, rog, and I share them. But in the static wilderness of January, I’m not yet prepared to downgrade Nick or Kevin, nor to upgrade Rafael or Madison. But I freely admit my opinions could change after this offseason. In fact, I’m sure they will – I see this as just a snapshot of the current situation. The folks in my Christmas photos all moved around after I took their pictures, and I’m sure our prospects will do the same thing.
I really like the McKamey idea. I should probably do that for my list. Here’s what I see as the logical conclusion: some way of multiplying (or adding?) the two values together to come up with a composite score, which would then determine your own personal rankings. Have you tried that? If so, what system have you used?
Anyone? Bueller?
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 12, 2009 2:12 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't actually done that, but it might be simple
I haven’t actually done what you suggest in terms of multiplication, but it might be as simple as multiplying the ceiling number by the probability percentage. I don’t think it IS that simple, though. Let me use Tim Lincecum as an example.
Two winters ago McKamey rated Tim a 9B. Using the number/percentage method, that would give Tim 9 x .7, or a 6.3 rating. I would probably have rated Tim a 10C (which to me would clearly be a higher rating), which would come out to 10 x .5, or a 5.0 rating — or LESS than the 6.3 I calculated for McKamey’s rating.
I think where this simple number thing doesn’t work is that if Tim had a 50% chance of being a Hall of Famer (not many would have rated him that high two years ago, and the more prudent likely STILL wouldn’t do so today), he also had a 50% chance of becoming something else. In my opinion two years ago that probably would have been a 30% chance of becoming an elite player, a 10% chance of becoming a solid regular and a 10% chance of flaming out.
If I add 10 × 50% to 9 × 30% to 8 x10% and ignore the flameout, I come up with a TOTAL rating of 8.5. Based on that, perhaps we should ignore anything below a ceiling of being a platoon player and use 1 for a platoon player, 2 for an average regular, 4 for a solid regular, 7 for an elite player and 11 for a Hall of Famer.
If we did that, if one gave Tim a 9B, he would be 7 x .70, or a 4.9 rating. If one gave him a 10C, that would be 11 x .5, or a 5.5 mark.
Let’s see how that would work with the top four Giants prospects, based on how I would rate them.
Posey — 9C (7 x .5 = 3.5)
Bumgarner — 9C (7 x .5 = 3.5)
Alderson — 8B (4 x .7 = 2.8)
Villalona — 9D (7 x .3 = 2.1)
That might be better, but I’m still not satisfied. How about this:
Posey — 9B/C (7 x .6 = 4.2)
Bumgarner - 9C/10E (7 x .5) = (11 x .05) = 4.05
Alderson — 8B (4 x .7 = 2.8)
Villalona - 9D/10E (7 x .3) + (11 x .5) = 2.65
I like the results better here, but to me it seems way too complicated.
Let’s try 1 for a platoon player, 2 an average regular, 4 for a solid regular, 8 for an elite player and 16 for a Hall of Famer.
Posey — 9C (8 x .5 = 4.0)
Bumgarner — 9C (8 x .5 = 4.0)
Alderson — 8B (4 x .7 = 2.8)
Villalona — 9D (8 x .3 = 2.4)
Still not perfect, but now we might be getting somewhere.
by sharksrog on Jan 12, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Interesting...
I got a bit glassy-eyed at the math, but I see where you’re headed. Perhaps the letter grades are confusing me. Would it be possible to use two 10-point scales? Or maybe two 100-point scales?
Just typing off the top of my head, if I were to use a 10-point system for each of the two categories, here’s how I would rank our top four:
Bumgarner 9(ceiling) 7(likelihood)
Posey 9(ceiling) 8(likelihood)
Alderson 8(ceiling) 8(likelihood)
Villalona 9(ceiling) 5(likelihood)
If we do a straight multiplication, I’d get:
Bumgarner 63
Posey 72
Alderson 64
Villalona 45
I think that adequately captures my view of MadBum, Posey, and Tim2. I suspect that would end up ranking Villalona too low after I did all the other prospects. Perhaps I was too harsh in my likelihood projection for him.
Critiques of the method?
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 13, 2009 5:54 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I like it
I like the method quite a bit. Clearly we each would evaluate the players somewhat differently, but with the numbers on a 1-100 scale they should be easy to understand.
Not only that, but if we were to run up a consensus, all we would have to do is add up all the scores and come up with an average for each player.
One question: What description would you give the likelihoods? Of course they could relate to their percentages divided by 10, but do you really think Buster has an 80% chance of becoming an elite player? That Mad Bum has a 70% chance of becoming one? That Angel has a 50% chance?
Also, your scoring of Mad Bum and Timmy Two might indicate a need for the categories of players to be honed down into something like Hall of Famer (10), Elite Player (8), Solid Regular (6), Average Regular (4), Platoon Player (3), Top Bench Player (2), OK Bench Player (1), Anything lower — who cares?
Without a slight alteration to the scoring system you proposed, a Solid Regular with a 70% chance would score 56, while a Hall of Famer with a 50% chance would score only 50. Even in the system I proposed above, the two scores would be 42 compared to 50, which isn’t nearly enough difference. Give me a prospect with a 50% shot at the Hall of Fame, and there would be few if any prospects I would take over him. Has there ever been a prospect who truly had MORE than a 50% chance of making the Hall of Fame even before he was a major leaguer?
I think your proposal was a BIG step forward — but that we still have a bit of work to do.
by sharksrog on Jan 13, 2009 2:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed, rog
There is still a lot of refinement needed. This will probably be a nice long-term project for me this year.
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 14, 2009 9:22 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Challenge
If you’re up to that challenge, Lyle, I commend you. And I would have to say that if you are able to come up with something approaching spot-on, you will have really accomplished something.
A quick idea that came to me as I was writing this is that perhaps squaring the revised level number (10 Hall of Fame, 8 elite player, etc.) before multiplying it by the likelihood percentage, and then rounding the quotient to the nearest integer.
In Buster’s case, that would mean he would rank at 64 x .7, or 45 when rounded to the nearest integer.
It might be that cubing the level number before multiplying by the likelihood percentage and dividing by 5 before rounding might work out even better. If a player had MORE than 50% chance of being a Hall of Famer he would score OVER 100, but I can’t imagine that happening in the real world.
By the way, using Posey in this last method, he would rank at 512 (8 cubed) x 70%, which equals 354.8, which when divided by 5 and rounded to the nearest integer would yield a 71score.
That seems a little low for a prospect of Posey’s caliber, but at least we’re getting closer. And a Hall of Famer with a 50% chance would still represent 100, or the top of the scale.
I have another idea, but this post is already too complicated, so let me end this one and start another.
by sharksrog on Jan 14, 2009 3:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
rog, yow that is complicated and the cubing…you are taking something that is a wild estimate, and magnifying its effect.
So instead of 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, you multiply by 200, 100.22, 43.2, 12.8, 1.6 as one part of the calculation. If my math is right.
I think the real thing we have to think thru is likelihood. It tends to be low for the high ceiling guys and high for the guys with low ceiling, and that levels things out too much.
As you say, even somebody that looks HOF bound only can be called .5 at best.
How about this: Make the likelihood factor relate to reaching the level of “solid regular” for EVERYBODY. MadBum and Posey being a “solid regular”— .8 or so. Alderson lower, since he has weird mechanics they say.
But you can’t rate a youngster like Raf Rodriguez that high, he has no track record. Jesus Guzman and EME are down around .4 or less to be regulars since their D is bad. Matt Downs and Joe Martinez also around .4, they will likely get their cup of coffee but may not have the talent to go beyond that.
Removing the decimals, making at all a 0 to 100 scale also works for me.
adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson
by foothillsfan on Jan 14, 2009 4:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Yeah, Mr. friend of Brandon Crawford (a guess on my part), I have managed to get things WAY too complicated. Hopefully my latest effort is more reasonable.
I like your idea of using multipliers if that fits in with the concept. Much better than the dividing I originally proposed.
And now I turn it all over to Lyle, who probably will come up with something so simple it makes us BOTH (and me in particular) look like idiots.
by sharksrog on Jan 14, 2009 4:31 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
OK
OK, let me fly with this idea, which is simpler, and see how it works. From here it is up to YOU, Lyle! :)
How about we ignore the Hall of Famer, figuring if a prospect has even a 10% chance of becoming a Hall of Famer, he’s off our charts. And how about we assign a value of 10 to the elite player, 7 to the solid regular, 5 to the average regular, 3 to the platoon player and 2 to the bench player.
Now Buster becomes an 10 × 8, or an 80. Mad Bum becomes a 10 × 7, or a 70. Alderson becomes a 7 × 8, or a 56. And Angel becomes 10 × 5, or a 50.
Probably still needs a little work, but getting better. One idea would be to divide the above numbers by .9 (since a player with a 90% chance of becoming an elite player would be rare and should deserve a perfect 100 score). That would place Buster at 89, Mad Bum at 78, Timmy Two at 62, and AnVil at 56.
If we used an 8 for the solid regular instead of the 7 I proposed above, Timmy Two would move up to a 70. Those numbers get closer to the spacing you had between the four players — and probably make the numbers more meaningful on a 1-100 scale.
by sharksrog on Jan 14, 2009 4:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
multiplying
so it sounds like you are using the likelihood number as the chance of reaching the level you just named in the first estimate. Angel has a 50% chance of being an elite level player. Posey has a 80% chance of being elite level. Alderson has a 80% chance of being a “solid regular”.
The confusion will come when we find a player who is hard to predict, a toolsy guy like Fairley. There is a tiny chance he will get it together and become elite. A decent chance he will play some in the majors. So is he 10 × 1
or 3 × 7? Maybe it doesnt matter, we already said he is hard to predict.
adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson
by foothillsfan on Jan 15, 2009 8:21 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not Fairley Certain
Wendell Fairley IS a very difficult player to gauge. Based on what I have seen thus far, I would rate him a 7D. That’s a 30% chance of becoming an average regular. We can throw out Hall of Famer, and his chances of being an elite player don’t appear very elite, either. He might become a solid regular, but I don’t see more than a 20% chance of that at this point.
I could rate him an 8E for a 10% chance of becoming a solid regular. If he has a really good year in 2009, perhaps he might become as high as an 8D (30% chance of becoming a solid regular). But for now I think 7D reflects most accurately on his chances (and perhaps gives him the benefit of the doubt, of which there is considerable at this point). I would be happy if he were able to move up to a 7C by a year from now. I wouldn’t be totally disappointed if he could merely firm up his 7D a bit.
Wendell is a very tough player to evaluate. But he doesn’t appear to have much power, and he doesn’t appear to be a great base stealer (although I believe he is fast). He hasn’t yet shown he can hit for average.
What is left? :) I am rating him as high as I am primarily because he was drafted #29 overall. Another season such as 2008, and I would probably drop him down a notch. But I DO expect improvement in 2009. Hopefully a LOT of improvement.
by sharksrog on Jan 18, 2009 12:20 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Rog
I think foothillsfan has brought up something that I think is a problem – or, at least, leads in a direction I don’t want to go. It seems wrong to base the Likelihood score on which level of Ceiling we think the player has. If one’s expectations for Tim Alderson were lower than one’s expectations of Madison Bumgarner (and I do not share that opinion), then is it fair to MadBum to give TimA a higher Likelihood score just because TimA’s lower Ceiling is easier to reach? (no pun intended).
I don’t know, just thinking as I type here; but that seems to be getting into comparing apples to oranges. OK, how about this?: The Likelihood score is simply our guess of whether or not that player will reach the majors. Having an 18-y-o with all the talent in the world, but him never playing for your ML team (due to injuries, increased competition, etc), doesn’t ultimately do you much good.
Here’s my assumption: I see Wendell Fairley and Matt Downs as being roughly equal in value at this moment. (And, of course, all these lists are just momentary snapshots). Wendell seems to have more raw natural ability, but Matt seems to have some “baseball skills” that lead me to believe he is very likely to play in the majors (albeit never being an All-Star). Best case scenario, Matt is Robbie Thompson. He hits some HR’s, has enough bat control to hit behind the runner, is average-to-slightly above-average defensively, and ends up coaching and siring 3-4 sons who eventually play in the bigs. Sorry, got carried away there. My point is that, in a system I would design, I would expect Wendell and Matt to have similar scores at this point, although for entirely different reasons.
Does that make sense to you?
Sergio Romo: striking out professional hitters since 2005.
by Lyle on Jan 15, 2009 4:08 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The crux of the situation
I think you have hit on the crux of the situation here, Lyle. It would seem that the primary consideration should be a player’s ceiling — then his probability of getting there.
I rated Wendell Fairley a 7D (perhaps a generous ranking) because I think he has a fair chance of reaching that level but isn’t likely to go far beyond it. Now, I don’t know as much about Matt Downs, although I have seen him play (one game). Based on what I have seen, I probably wouldn’t quite go 7D for Matt (even though I DO think he has some chance of becoming an average regular). I don’t think 7D would be a horrible call, but I would be more likely to give him a 6C or 6D. That would be a platoon player with a30% or 50% chance of reaching that level.
Matt will be 25 when the 2009 season opens. At 24, he was a little old for High A San Jose — and while he didn’t totally wash out in Fresno, he wasn’t particularly good there, either. I would guess he could have been a decent player in AA had he played there last year. That’s more the level his age would have dictated.
As with Fairley, Matt too is a tough call. Almost ALL players are pretty tough to evaluate with much certainty until they get above Class A, particularly in the lower levels of Class A or when a player is a bit overage for his level.
When you are coming up with your point-scoring system, it will be intriguing if you are able to properly weight the ceiling factor compared to the probabliity of reaching it.
For instance, I would prefer an elite player with a 10% chance (9E) to a solid regular with a 30% chance (8D) to an average regular with a 50% chance (7C) to a platoon player with a 90% chance (6A).
by sharksrog on Jan 18, 2009 12:40 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
My non-groudthink list
My top 10 aren’t the same as they were in the previous post. I’m a waffler.
- Madison Bumgarner
- Buster Posey
- Angel Villalona
- Tim Alderson
- Conor Gillaspie
- Henry Sosa
- Roger Kieschnick
- Nick Noonan
- Wendell Fairley
- Brandon Crawford
- Rafael Rodriguez
- Hector Sanchez
- Joe Martinez
- Waldis Joaquin
- Aaron King
- Jorge Bucardo
- Jesse English
- Jose Casilla
- Kevin Pucetas
- Scott Barnes
- Thomas Neal
- Jesus Guzman
- Travis Ishikawa
- Clayton Tanner
- Ben Snyder
- Eddy Martinez-Esteve
- Mike Loree
- Kelvin Marte
- Ehire Adrianza
- Jason Jarvis
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 12, 2009 11:00 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
We don't really have that much pitching depth. We don't really have that much pitching depth. FOR GOD SAKE, VERUCA, DON'T GO FAKE TRADING JONATHAN SANCHEZ. We don't really have that much pitching depth
by oldjacket on Jan 12, 2009 11:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
An eagle carrying a waffle?
That’s pretty awesome.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 12, 2009 11:14 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ranked according to whom I root for:
1. Bumgarner
2. Villalona
3. Adrianza
4. Fairley
5. Noonan
6. Matos
7. Neal
8. Barnes
9. Downs
10. Rohlinger
11. McBryde
12. Posey
13. Alderson
14. English
15. Guzman
16. EME
17. Crawford
18. Joey Martinez
19. Hector Sanchez
20. Gillaspie
by Evan on Jan 12, 2009 4:05 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Oh, come on, Evan. We all know it’s “ranked according to for whom I root.”
by Dan from NM on Jan 12, 2009 9:36 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ranked according to whom I root for
Here are my rankings according to whom I root for:
1. Tim Lincecum
………………………….
30. Tim Lincecum
Oh, and one other guy I root for: Tim Lincecum. And another thing: Tim Lincecum. And lest I forget, Tim Lincecum. Did I happen to mention Tim Lincecum?
by sharksrog on Jan 12, 2009 5:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Top prospects
My working list looks something like this:
1. Buster Posey ( A- )
2. Madison Bumgarner
3. Tim Alderson
4. Angel Villalona ( B+ )
5. Nick Noonan ( B )
6. Connor Gilaspie
7. Henry Sosa ( B- )
8. Rafael Rodriguez ( C+ )
9. Eihre Adrianza
10. Wendell Fairley
11. Clayton Tanner
12. Kevin Pucetas
13. Jesse English
14. Jose Casilla
15. Scott Barnes
16. Sergio Romo
17. Luis Perdomo ( C )
18. Billy Sadler
19. Travis Ishikawa
20. Waldis Juaquin
21. Kelvin Pichardo
22. Jesus Guzman
23. Thomas Neal
24. Roger Kieschnick
25. Joseph Martinez
26. Benjamin Snyder
27. Wilber Bucardo
28. Osiras Matos
29. Brandon Crawford
30. Hector Sanchez
31. Kyle Nicholson
32. Jason Jarvis
33. Charlie Culberson
34. Matt Downs
35. Michael McBride
36. Eddie Martinez-Esteve
37. Jorge Bucardo
38. Ryan Rohlinger
39. Juan Carlos Perez
40. Aaron King
The things I take most into consideration are (in order):
- Overall potential ceiling
- Likelihood of reaching that ceiling
- Actual performance controlled for age (and, perhaps more importantly, prof. experience) vs. Level
- Athleticism & Defensive projection/capability (position factors in here)
- Injury history
I tend to believe scouts, although I use more statistical analysis than ever before; but in prospect watching, so much development has yet to unfold that people can get a false positive by weighing stats too heavily (like when evaluating Villalona, I think). I didn’t move Angel down in my rankings – Posey is a stud at a premium defensive position, Bumgarner and Alderson just had phenomenal years.
Hector Sanchez: really getting tired of playing baseball in foreign countries...
by tedfordfan on Jan 12, 2009 5:49 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
mcbrydes bad stats
from last years san jose roster, 10 players had 200 or more at bats. ranked by SLG, they range from Pablito’s 597 to Tyler Graham at 330. McBryde is 8th on that list, SLG of 383.
Looking at OBP—McB is 4th best out of 10, 368 in a hitter friendly league. Barely ahead of, say, Matt Downs who slugged 110 more.
OPS—McB is 200 pts behind Brad Boyer, a 3B 2 years older who was never mentioned here, and whose SB/CS were 15/5, just like McB’s 31/10. So McBryde may be toolsy and fast but he is not a top prospect for me.
adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson
by foothillsfan on Jan 13, 2009 11:26 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Two positions
Mike is very likely going to have to be either a center fielder or a pitcher if he is to make much of himself.
by sharksrog on Jan 13, 2009 2:49 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I haven’t. Has McB pitched in the minors? are people rating him as a pitcher?
speaking of pitching—my worry about Bumgarner is that coming into the season, he only had the fastball. Anybody know if that is still the case? That’s why I can’t call him a super high likelihood guy.
adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson
by foothillsfan on Jan 13, 2009 11:44 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Throws a slurvy slider and an improving changeup. He’s more than just a fastball, his command looks great.
by xanthan on Jan 13, 2009 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Has Mike pitched in the minors?
I didn’t realize Mike had actually pitched in the minors. I see that as a good sign.
by sharksrog on Jan 13, 2009 2:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I think xanthan was talking about Bumgarner.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 13, 2009 3:06 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Patience is a virgin.
They say some players get out of bed hitting; Pablo Sandoval doesn't wait that long
by bgunn on Jan 13, 2009 12:17 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Classic
I’ll leave my commentary out, but that article is full of hilariousness.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 13, 2009 1:22 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
The crazy part to me is that it casually mentions her sister was a prostitute for 3 weeks.
GROUGTHINK ALERT
by groug on Jan 13, 2009 2:09 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Family Business?
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 13, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I mean, if they really wanted to pull in the dough, they should probably have coordinated with each other.
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realized God doesn’t work that way, so I stole one and prayed for forgiveness. - Emo Philips
Neglectful father of David Quinowski
by marcello on Jan 13, 2009 2:47 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
will be fun to watch MadBum if he is a SJ Giant.
I am more of a depth chart list guy. Kind of thinking how good a lineup we could project out of our system. And I tend to list them in tiers:
top tier: Alderson, MadBum, Angel, Posey, I will add Thomas Neal to be different.
second are guys I see having an impact, not just roster filler: Adrianza, Klieshnick, Noonan, Downs, Hector Sanchez, Jesus G, RafRodriguez, Gillaspie for positions,
and for pitchers—
Tanner, Romo, Henry Sosa, English, Barnes, Joe Martinez, Pucetas
third tier would be sleepers just cz I like surprises—like JC Perez, Quirarte, Maday, Otero
Fairley and Crawford don’t make my second tier with no production yet, and without the intrigue factor of Adrianza or the power of Sanchez and RafRod. If I was gonna go to 30 they would be on it, but not above 15.
adopter/sponsor of "Go, Antoan" Richardson
by foothillsfan on Jan 13, 2009 12:16 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Perspective
For perspective on Thomas Neal as a prospect, he is two years older than Madison Bumgarner. Neal played well for Augusta; Mad Bum dominated the league as had seldom happened before. Neal is three years older than Angel Villalona, who performed close to equally with Neal.
And Neal’s improvement as the season progressed was little more than modest. Neal’s hitting after the All-Star break was improved, but his K/BB ratio actually worsened a bit.
I realize you added Thomas Neal to your top tier to be different, but in this case I’m not sure different is good.
by sharksrog on Jan 13, 2009 2:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
my revised list.
1. MadBum – needs no explanation
2. Buster – he’ll be up by July
3. TimA – he should do very well in AA and could be up in a bullpen role in August if the Giants are contenders.
4. AnVil – I’d love to see him move back to 3rd base, but it seems he’ll stay at 1st.
5. Gillaspie – can definitely hit. I hope to see him up in the bigs by 2010.
6. Noonan – seems to be on his way. i wish he had more power, but I’ll settle for solid defense and good speed. Needs to improve his on base skills.
7. TI – power and defense are real and he’s the starter right now. He’ll probably never hit lefties, though, and that limits his ceiling.
8. RafRod – too early to tell, but very high ceiling with lots of tools. Plenty of time to find out.
9. Sosa – if he stays healthy, he’ll be dynamite. But health is a key. It may be time to trade him if we get a good season out of him with minimal injuries.
10. Mr. Wendell – I see him becoming Fred Lewis in 5 years, though with a bit more pop and less speed.
Proud adopted parent of future big league slugger Thomas Neal
by nostocksjustbonds on Jan 13, 2009 2:56 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 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.
