One More Prospect List: SFDugout Top 50
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 2:49 PM PST
Email
PrintWith games about to start, it's time to finish off the prospect lists. We've finished posting our 50 prospects, and here's the list with some comments about some of our more...controversial rankings.
#1. Buster Posey
#2. Madison Bumgarner
#3. Thomas Neal
#4. Brandon Crawford
#5. Zack Wheeler
#6. Roger Kieschnick
#7. Kevin Pucetas
#8. Dan Runzler
#9. Conor Gillaspie
#10. Nick Noonan
#11. Kyle Nicholson
#12. Brock Bond
#13. Matt Downs
#14. Waldis Joaquin
#15. Jason Stoffel
#16. Joe Martinez
#17. Clayton Tanner
#18. Tommy Joseph
#19. Francisco Peguero
#20. Steve Edlefsen
#21. Rafael Rodriguez
#22. Dan Turpen
#23. Jorge Bucardo
#24. Craig Clark
#25. Brett Pill
#26. Jesus Guzman
#27. Joe Paterson
#28. Eric Surkamp
#29. Christopher Dominguez
#30. Dan Otero
#31. Daryl Maday
#32. Mike McBryde
#33. Evan Crawford
#34. Ryan Cavan
#35. Darren Ford
#36. Ryan Rohlinger
#37. Drew Biery
#38. Hector Sanchez
#39. Bryan Salsbury
#40. Henry Sosa
#41. Ari Ronick
#42. Aaron King
#43. Ryan Verdugo
#44. Ben Copeland
#45. Geno Espineli
#46. Juan Perez
#47. Wendell Fairley
#48. Julio Izturis
#49. Kelvin Marte
#50. Ehire Adrianza
#8A. Angel Villalona
• How do we do our rankings? Well, we have different views than some. Our rankings are oriented on likelihood to be a major leaguer, rather than simply looking at ceiling, and is as production-based and tools-based. We try to walk a midline between stats and scouting.
• Kevin Pucetas in the Top 10? Yep. He has major league velocity (low 90's fastball), four good pitches, and good control. And other than a really bad month to end the season, he was an All-Star pitcher in AAA at 24. He's not an ace, but I like him to be a #3-4 pitcher in the bigs for a long time; cheap and effective. And I like him to win the 5th starter spot out of Spring Training.
• Tommy Joseph came out lower than some out of our production-based system, but it's hard to be too high on a high school slugger with positional problems without actually seeing how his tools will play against pitchers who can throw breaking pitches.
• The reliever issue was brought up a few weeks ago, but I'll say it again: just because a decent reliever can be found on the scrap heap once in a while doesn't mean a team should rely on it. Turpen, Edlefsen and Paterson get ranked higher on our list than others because they have good chances to be that player for more than a year at a time. Stoffel and Runzler get even higher because of closer potential.
• Rafael Rodriguez-another high potential but low producing player so far. The complete lack of power production is the issue. It's a key to his high value, and to have no hint of it keeps us a little low.
• Ehire Adrianza - Two words: Sharlon Schoop. We've heard this story before. Until we see more out of him, we won't fall for it again. I've seen his bat, and I don't think he can do the adjustments needed to be effective. And his defense wasn't that impressive to me, and I love a great defender.
Enjoy, and feel free to rip to shreds.
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.
133 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
What makes Kyle Nicholson better than Eric Surkamp?
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare
To a lesser degree, level.
The bigger ones come in durability and stuff. Nicholson is better able to throw more innings a night, though that’s partially attributable to age.
Another is stuff. Their fastballs are pretty similar, and Surkamp has an excellent curve, though he can lose feel for it at times. His changeup needs to be a lot better, however. I like Nicholson’s mix of four pitches better than Surkamp’s three right now, though Surkamp’s curve is the best pitch of any single one out of the two of them. (Honestly, this is minor as well…if not for the last reason, I might have bumped Surkamp up to Nicholson’s level).
The other, and biggest, is an unusual mix of stats. His high strikeout rate was accompanied by an extraordinarily high BABIP. Surkamp gives up a lot of hard-hit balls. He’s the kind of player who can be bitten by a high strikeout rate in the low minors. It’s usual to expect that the strikeout rate will go down, meaning more balls in play. If he keeps giving up hard hit balls, he’ll be in trouble. If he can keep this up at San Jose, I’ll be a believer. But that’s a question.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
Fair enough – though, as you say, a lot of Nicholson’s advantages seem to be a result of his age, which doesn’t seem like quite as much of an advantage when you consider that he was a 23 y/o in A and high-A ball last year.
Matt Cain: He'll save children, but not the Dodger children.
"Out, out, Fred Lewis!" - JCTillam Gamerspeare
His high strikeout rate was accompanied by an extraordinarily high BABIP. Surkamp gives up a lot of hard-hit balls. He’s the kind of player who can be bitten by a high strikeout rate in the low minors. It’s usual to expect that the strikeout rate will go down, meaning more balls in play. If he keeps giving up hard hit balls, he’ll be in trouble.
You’re approaching this backward. Strikeout rate tends to stay fairly consistent; it will drop as he faces better competition, but it will probably do so in an orderly and predictable way. BABIP, on the other hand, moves around a lot at random. It doesn’t have much predictive value for seasons to come.
In other words, that .380 BABIP is likely to come down farther and faster than that 11.34 strikeouts per nine innings figure.
You’re talking about a lot of “minor” differences (7 games at a higher level, 20 more innings, etc) and yet you have an extreme difference in ranking (11 – 29 is pretty dramatic). Putting aside the fact that you’re really dismissing two major differences (age and K rates), how do the small things you’re talking about add up to such an extreme difference in ranking?
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Yes, for now.
I also see that Bond is ranked above Downs, I would think it should be the other way around as Downs’ glove is better and he hits for more power.
Adopted father of Brian Bocock, Brad Boyer, Sharlon Schoop, Shane Jordan and Jeremiah Luster,Trey Webb and David Quinowski.
"GM Jack Zduriencik is one of the sharper tools in the shed. Elsewhere in that shed, Brian Sabean continues to pound screws into bricks with a garden rake."
Downs over Joseph is simply an issue of likelihood. Obviously, Joseph is a higher ceiling player, but a high schooler with no pro experience and positional questions over a lower ceiling player who made it to the bigs, and can play multiple positions…yea, likelihood. If Joseph has a good pro debut, he should move up quickly.
Bond over Downs is a little different. Downs is good in several areas, but Bond is extraordinary in a couple: hitting for average and plate discipline. I did make an assumption he’ll stop being a liability on the basepaths because the problem isn’t a lack of speed and seemingly more about running a little too recklessly. He won’t be a plus, but shouldn’t be a minus.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
Downs has consistently hit 300 at every level though his k rate is quite a bit higher than I would expect. I would like to see him get a solid opportunity in the bigs.
Bond’s glove is not as bad as some seem to thing, if anything I would think his arm would be holding him back.
Adopted father of Brian Bocock, Brad Boyer, Sharlon Schoop, Shane Jordan and Jeremiah Luster,Trey Webb and David Quinowski.
"GM Jack Zduriencik is one of the sharper tools in the shed. Elsewhere in that shed, Brian Sabean continues to pound screws into bricks with a garden rake."
I don't disagree on either point.
I would love to see Downs get his real shot, not the “Oops, we just sent down Frandsen too recently, oh well, let’s get Matt” chance he got this season.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:15 PM PST up reply actions
Ford’s a guy I love to root for. He’s got a few tools that are great, but he’s also the definition of a late bloomer. He obviously made the right decision about switch hitting during last season, but it’s going to take a lot more than a great half-season at High-A at his age to move up the rankings. I do expect him to start the season in Fresno as the Giants will give him a chance to prove it wasn’t a mirage.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:09 PM PST up reply actions
Ford’s starting in Fresno?? At least let the guy get 100 AB’s in Richmond to warm up.
"And we plead and we pray for a glimmer of day,
As the night folds its wings and descends, exposing the loose ends."
Proud adoptive parent of Sergio Romo. Looking forward to adopting Justin Smoak.
Just my expectation...
It depends on minor league camp and the performances there.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:10 PM PST up reply actions
I mentioned Bond above.
Gillaspie is probably my biggest ‘tools’ projection…and in retrospect, is probably the one I feel the most exposed about. I really do like his bat. I know his power won’t play at the higher levels, but I like the Bill Mueller comparisons. My only worry is that because of his push to the majors is that he’ll be rushed rather than given time to develop.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:04 PM PST up reply actions
Brute
As you may know, I tend to view these lists more like you do than most others here. That being said, I don’t have Gillaspie anywhere near the top 10 (#23, iirc) – and your comment about being most exposed with this ranking certainly piqued my interest. Is it just that you think he will be the next Bill Mueller? My impression of Mueller was that he was a pretty good defensive 3B, and I’m certainly not hearing that about Conor right now.
"And we plead and we pray for a glimmer of day,
As the night folds its wings and descends, exposing the loose ends."
Proud adoptive parent of Sergio Romo. Looking forward to adopting Justin Smoak.
Same here
I’d personally be higher on Gillaspie if I consistently heard good things about his defense.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
Yea, and that’s a place where there is a difference between the two. I did like what I saw in San Jose. He made some good dives and stabs, which surprised me. Actually reminded me a little of Pablo at third, and Pablo never got great marks for his defense (outside of his arm) either.
Like I said, that’s me out on a limb there, but I think I still like it.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:12 PM PST up reply actions
Also
do you think Adrianza’s glove is overrated? I understand the case for not making him top ten, but if he’s a good defender at a key position, then surely that improves his probability of making the big league roster by a lot. Especially compared with certified non-entities like Fairley.
FU, FO
Yes.
Now, I haven’t seen him very often, so my looks have been limited, but I just didn’t see it. The range is very good, and he grabs onto almost any ball near him, but I just didn’t see the kind of reactions or instincts that I could see on a diminished Omar Vizquel regularly when he was a Giant.
Also, 30 errors. What? If he had 10, that could be a statistical incongruity or perhaps miscredited errors, but 30?
He has the defensive tools, but he doesn’t even have offensive production to make up for the lack of defensive production.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:14 PM PST up reply actions
fair enough. We’ve ranked him highly here, based entirely on his age and secondhand info about his D, so I’ll admit you’re pessimism about his glove moves the meter for me.
That said, I still think you have ranked him too low. Not to harp on a single point, but he put up similar slash lines (with better strike zone control) to Fairley last year, despite being two years younger and at the same level.
FU, FO
Reconcile, please?
Our rankings are oriented on likelihood to be a major leaguer
#8A. Angel Villalona
Considering his situation, I do not think that Villalona is the 8th most likely to be a major leaguer.
Other than that, I believe Gillaspie is too high and Rodriguez is too low.
WHY IS BENGIE?!
by Lars The Wanderer on Mar 2, 2010 3:10 PM PST reply actions
I forgot to add that note
We made Villalona 8A as the asterisk of the situation. We judged him based upon his baseball tools and experience, but held off on making any commentaries on his future status since that is still up in the air. Obviously, the time lost from the trial and incarceration will have an adverse effect on him, but there simply wasn’t (and still isn’t) to make any determinations on it.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 3:46 PM PST up reply actions
Nice list...
It’s nice to see this list. I know the Giants have some prospects that might actually pan out. =) I do update all the Latest Rumors on my site with stuff on these guys as well. Maybe we can work together on some future posts.
King of Cali
All The Latest SF Giants Rumors
http://www.sfgiantsbaseball.net
King of Cali
All The Latest SF Giants Rumors!
http://www.sfgiantsbaseball.net
You don’t need to type out your entire sig every time you post, y’know.
"Why not trade Bumgarner for some banger stud?" - sfgiants.com commenter or online porn ad? You be the judge!
Adopted Giant: the probably soon to be ditched but still awesome Fred Lewis
YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF KING OF CALI!!
WHY IS BENGIE?!
by Lars The Wanderer on Mar 2, 2010 3:31 PM PST up reply actions
If you were the king of cali, wouldn't you want everyone to know?
It’s good to be the king
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
Thanks!
I got your email, and I’ll look into it. I’m sorry I won’t be able to respond right away, but I will soon. We’re a little overwhelmed prepping a bit of a project for the upcoming San Jose season. :)
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:27 PM PST up reply actions
In what way is Adrianza like Sharlon Schoop?
If anything, Schoop seems more comparable to Brandon Crawford. They had remarkably similar numbers as teammates at AA last year.
I would disagree
Schoop has a significantly lower offensive ceiling. Schoop also has the benefit of moving slowly up the system, compared to Crawford’s rush. Schoop repeated each of the half-season levels before doing a step-by-step climb up the system. If the minors were a track, Schoop has a 10 second head start, and would be lapped soon.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:20 PM PST up reply actions
But after all that, Schoop is still younger than Crawford.
Anyway, dismissing one prospect because he reminds you in some way of another prospect who flopped is unpersuasive.
I really don’t understand the comparison at all. Sharlon Schoop was hyped more by Dr. B than by anybody else I ever saw. He’s only ever made the BA Top 30 once (and that was in the 20s after I think the 2006 season), and that was more on the hope that there might be some power in his bat that would distinguish him as a MI. I know there was a quote at one point about him being the second best defensive SS in the system, but that was 1) an organizational voice doing the hyping; and 2) back before the Bocock/Burriss draft when their SS depth was pretty execrable, and made that particular statement quite possibly true.
Adrianza’s defensive ability seems to be much more universally admired among the scouting community, opponent managers and the Giants.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Schoop ranked 21 in the 07 BA handbook
Thomas Neal ranked 22, so that’s interesting. After re-reading the BA blurb it basically said he hit better than expected, started making bad throws and was sad to see Shairon Martis traded
Kevin Frandsen: The best SS on the Giants roster
Hoping for BowkerMania to hit AT&T Park in 2010
Ah, I was being glib.
I’m dismissing him because he has supposedly one great tool, and the rest seems to be a lot of hoping with little background. And when he’s gotten a shot…even that one tool isn’t showing.
He’d be a fringe prospect in my mind if his defense was performing as advertised. Without it? I stand by #50.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:19 PM PST up reply actions
I agree, how is Adrianza like Sharlon Schoop
And how is Adrianza 50th? Making him 50th while Crawford is 4th makes the methodology of this ranking seem questionable.
I’ll repeat what I wrote previously regarding my adopted son: People forget that he was only 19 last year in a league where the average pitcher’s age is 21.6 YO, meaning most have 2-3 more years of experience and development on him. And he still had an above average OBP of .333 (league average of .324) with 83% contact rate (or 17% strikeout rate) and a nice 0.64 BB/K ratio. Plus that’s a pitcher’s park in a pitcher’s league (if I remember that right, dang BP took out their park factors in their 2010 book).
When Schoop made Augusta, not only was he a year older than Adrianza, he hit so poorly there that he was shoved back to Salem-Keizer. Adrianza already knows how to handle the bat, he just needs to build up the muscle to hit for more power and get his SLG up so that his OPS is OK, which in the NL is .720’s roughly.
To recap, he has the glove already, he can get on base better than guys 2-3 years older than he is and against pitchers 2-3 years older and more experienced, in any case, no matter what age, he handles the bat well, both in terms of taking walks and avoiding strikeouts, so his main thing is that he needs to develop some power to make it to the majors. That’s why publications like Baseball America and Baseball Prospectus think so much of him that he is in their Top 10 Giants prospects (Top 5 for BP). That should be good enough to get him 2-3 years in the majors.
And how was Crawford rushed? He was 22 YO last season. Here are the leaders in OPS in the Eastern League in 2009:
Brandon Snyder (22 YO) – 1st
Pedro Alvarez (22 YO) – 2nd (was drafted in the same draft as Crawford)
Ike Davis (22 YO) – 5th (was drafted in the same draft as Crawford)
Jesus Montrero (19 YO) – 11th
Josh Reddick (22 YO) – 13th
Plus, Crawford was hitting .365/.441/.587/1.028 with 6 HR in 104 AB. Where in those numbers say that Crawford should be held back in San Jose in order to not rush him?
Adoptive parental unit of Ehire Adrianza.
Godfather of Travis Ishikawa.
"Woo hoo!" - Tim "The Kid" Lincecum
"The objective is that World Series ring" - The Kid
by obsessivegiantscompulsive on Mar 17, 2010 4:03 PM PDT up reply actions
I think you’re a bit low on RafRod. The kid is 17 years old – it seems to me the power is a “developmental” type thing, especially given a 17 year old who’s body is still maturing and filling out. His approach to hitting has to be a big time plus, too. Combine that with his scouting report that earned him such a large bonus, and I see no reason to be down on him at all.
My worry with the power is that he can hit out batting practice pitches, but not in the games (when they count).
Ever play a pickup basketball game and hear someone get mocked for being a ‘practice player’? So far, that’s Raf-Rod and his power.
I do like his approach and his overall athleticism, but he’ll need to show more to be higher.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:21 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t buy the whole “practice player” thing. If someone has skills, it’ll show up in the game at some point – so….more that I disagree with the analogy itself than of the difference between BP and a game. I guess I just feel since he should still be in HS if he was American it’s not a big deal. They can change his swing, maybe he just needs to start squaring up a little more, I dunno, but he’s still at the age where he can change/learn a significant amount, which is why it doesn’t seem to raise a red flag for me. If we were talking about a guy right out of college, even if he was in a league where he wasn’t older than his competition, I’d be much more concerned – it’s just the age factor here.
by Missing Barry on Mar 2, 2010 5:54 PM PST up reply actions
That depends entirely upon the level of competition though doesn’t it, and the ability of the opposition to negate your skills. One obvious case in point so far for us has been Schierholtz, whose BP power is already legendary (breaking windows in apartment buildings and such) but who’s been almost completely incapable of translating that into game power on the major league level (due to issues that have been covered pretty well).
I guess if you’re saying at some point he’ll get a BP fastball in game and crush it, sure. But if you only do that two or three times in the course of the season, it’s hard to say that you really showed the skills during games. I guess Fred Lewis power potential is another example (remember how his gargantuan splash shot spurred dreams of a 20+ HR hitter?).
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I guess if you’re saying at some point he’ll get a BP fastball in game and crush it, sure.
Nah, I’m saying he’s a raw 17 year old who’d still be in HS if he was American. His skills have a long way to go, and it seems reasonable to expect him to better translate his BP power into game-usable power as his skills progress and he matures. We’re not talking about a 24-25 year old Nate Schierholtz here who likely has very little improvement left, we’re talking about a kid that’s going to improve significantly with time.
I guess Fred Lewis power potential is another example
Lewis is a great example, if you check out his HitTracker from 2008, his HR’s were bombs. Seems when he gets a hold of one, it goes far, but he doesn’t do it often enough to be relied on as a power hitter. Again, the difference is while Lewis is probably at or near his peak, Rodriguez has a lot of development left, to the point where he can completely reinvent himself if that’s what someone decides he should do….
by Missing Barry on Mar 3, 2010 6:54 AM PST up reply actions
Ah, yes, I somehow separated the argument from Rafrod specifically, and was just thinking about at it more abstractly. I don’t much care at all about Rodriguez’ power numbers at 16 years old in 35 games; it’s just not an issue to me. I agree totally with Evan’s comment below on that, and you as well. Sorry for the confusion.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
But he’s the equivalent of a junior in high school. He still has a lot of filling out to do. Is it really fair to expect someone 3 to 4 years younger than most of his competition to hit for any power? It’s one thing to consider him too far away to judge, but you can’t blame him for not being fully grown.
The very bad man who traded my first son non-tendered my replacement son. F*ck you Brian Sabean. Leave my children alone.
Well I think the point he’s making is that not being fully grown might not be the issue here – if he’s displaying big time BP practice then it’s not his strength/power that’s the issue, it’s putting that power to use in game situations and against real live pitching. But yeah, like I said, I’m more in agreement with you that as young as he is, we probably can’t get a good picture of his full ability yet.
by Missing Barry on Mar 2, 2010 8:04 PM PST up reply actions
The kid’s only played in 35 games thus far, so making distinctions between his BP skills and his game skills is pretty far-fetched.
As far-fetched as using his BP skills and ignoring his game skills to consider him a Top Ten Prospect?
I agree, he’s got a lot of filling out to do. But just because he has filling out to do doesn’t mean he’s going to fill out into the best possible case.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:22 PM PST up reply actions
True. In fact, the odds are against it. But still, not only is he highly projectable, he’s holding his own despite being very young for his league. That’s a good combination.
For upside freaks like me, the slim chance that he turns into the next Dave Winfield is reason enough to rank him high. But as Roger likes to argue, the great tools also means that he has a better chance than most of being a serviceable role player in the likely event that things don’t go perfectly.
Ah, but even the 'if things don't go perfectly' argument doesn't work with Ehire...
…considering most agree that his overall offensive tools are average at best. The only plus tool is his defense.
Honestly, his ‘best case’ scenario would seem to be Neifi Perez with better defense. I can’t believe that anything less than that is a ‘servicable role player’, considering Neifi was barely that.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 5, 2010 12:50 AM PST up reply actions
That’s really an odd comparison given that the one thing people have liked about Adrianza’s offense, going back to his years in the DSL, is his willingness to work counts and take walks, and it was precisely the unwillingness to do the same that made Neifi such a brutally bad offensive player.
Add 70 points of OBP to Neifi’s totals (which would equate to the .100 ISOobp in Adrianza’s minor league career) AND give him better defense and you’ve got yourself a very good major league player. As it is, Neifi had a 12 year career (for whatever reason), the thought of which would surely thrill anybody on this list.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I dunno, I have to lean towards Brute’s side here – Adrianza can barely hit well enough in A ball to be worthwhile, I don’t see a lot of reasons to be too optimistic about his bat ever being acceptable enough to make him even a fringe MLB’er. Sure, it’s possible – it just seems it’s the less likely case. .070 Iso in A ball is worrisome, to say the least.
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 5:54 AM PST up reply actions
It is, it absolutely is. I’m just saying that Neifi’s not the proper comp. Vizquel’s a pretty obvious one (if you want to talk best best best case), but I can certainly understand wanting to avoid the exceptionalism involved there.
But there are a few current major league SS who’s minor league offense provided a few woeful moments in their development. Jason Bartlett put up a .080 Iso in A+ ball at 22. Alcides Escobar at 19 put up a sub-.050 Iso in a really ugly .257/.296/.306 season in the FSL (in what appears to be an injury shortened season) and followed it with a combined .301/.336/.366 at age 20 in A+ and AA.
Christian Guzman at 19 hit .273/.310/.354 in A ball. While Edgar Renteria had a .063 Iso for his entire minor league career! (including a truly noxious .232/.268/.232 line in the Midwest League and a .253/.307/.292 in the FSL. Now Renteria was extraordinarily young for his league (leading back to the age vs. level debate), but still, a .232 SLG would I’m guessing could lead to some serious razzing in our community prospect debates.
Another interesting comparison is Elvis Andrus. Andrus consistently has two years on Adrianza, which again is of paramount importance, but his numbers are only very marginally better. As a 17 year old in the Sally he hit only .265/.324/.362 and then he followed that with a worse season in A+ ball (in better hitting environments) at 18, with a .257/.338/.343 campaign.
Obviously Adrianza is no lock to match any of these guys careers, but I do think that collectively they offer some consolation that if a guy has a real major league glove at the SS position, there are various development curves to getting an acceptable bat, and not all of them are pretty.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Yes, that is an odd aspect of it as well.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Gah
These threads get so long, I lose track of who it is we’re talking about.
With Rodriguez, the ‘Further to Fall’ argument holds more water, at least.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 5, 2010 7:40 AM PST up reply actions
I hope you're right about Pucetas
I’d love to see him win the starting job out of ST and let Madbum season is AAA.
Plus, I just love saying “Pucetas”. It sounds dirty.
"We're in this thing!" My adopted Giant: "Raptor Jesus" Guzman, "Sweet Jesus" Guzman and Jesus H. Guzman.
Otero sighting!
Gotta love it!
If God had intended us not to rosterbate, he would've made our arms shorter.
Clark
Curious why he’s so much lower than Tanner. From what I’ve seen Clark has better, more consistent stuff and mixes well.
Thoughts?
Adopted father of Brian Bocock, Brad Boyer, Sharlon Schoop, Shane Jordan and Jeremiah Luster,Trey Webb and David Quinowski.
"GM Jack Zduriencik is one of the sharper tools in the shed. Elsewhere in that shed, Brian Sabean continues to pound screws into bricks with a garden rake."
Age plays a big part
I’m not sure I’d say Clark has better stuff, but that’s a matter of subjectivity. I definitely agree about the consistency and mixing.
However, Clark was three years older. This is a bit of a projection thing…even if you don’t think that Tanner has better stuff now, I think that he will be better in a couple of years. Clark, meanwhile, is probably pretty much the pitcher he will always be at this point.
And, as an aside, the distance between 15 and 25 was not a big one. A lot of tough choices there who came close in our scoring system.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
prospect rankings
Good job Brute. Still have reservations about Bumgarner though. Even with an outstanding Double A record last year, the lack of velocity has to be a concern.
by thehondohurricane on Mar 2, 2010 4:16 PM PST reply actions
Thanks!
Good to see you, hondo. Hope we still get to see you around these parts.
I bet you’re probably not happy about getting the short-season team, but I was happy to see at least someone come in for you guys. Then again, it is the Tigers…
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 2, 2010 4:23 PM PST up reply actions
I'm intrigued by Bond...
simply because his last name reminds of a pretty decent former Giant. But in all seriousness, is this guy really a prospect? He hits for average and draws walks, but at 23 he is yet to develop any semblance of power and doesn’t run well, which is usually a must for light hitting second basemen.
Also, can someone fill me in on Nick Noonan?
I’m interested in these two guys because I really know very little about both of them despite the fact they are fairly highly ranked prospects for us. Looking at their numbers, I don’t see all that much upside for either of them, but any info on these guys would be appreciated
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son
by lincecuminyourface on Mar 2, 2010 5:08 PM PST reply actions
Bond — gotta love the OBP, but there are very few good players with his skill set. He has less power than any major-league player, and nobody likes his defense. So he’s a real longshot.
Noonan does a little bit of everything, but nothing particularly well yet. Still, he’s been very young for the leagues he’s played in and still has plenty of potential.
Bond
One thing I wonder about with Bond this year is if will get an opportunity to produce. Reportedly, he is only a second baseman and at Fresno I see Burris, Frandsen, Downs, and maybe even Velez taking those innings. With Crawford penciled in at short and Rohlinger at third, it will limit those other guys taking innings other than at second base. Noonan will be entrenched at Richmond, so I don’t see him as a starter at AA either.
POO-cetas
Get on this bandwagon early folks…
In all seriousness, I don’t think as highly of Pucetas because I can’t picture him putting up anything higher than 2 WAR at his very best unless his K and BB rates bounce back and probably settling in around 1.5 for most of his career. And I’m also skeptical about him actually sitting in the low 90s rather than the 88-90 range I’ve heard. Although if he does better than what I think, that’d be great.
Also, Wendell ahead of Ehire? A left fielder who can’t really do anything v. a shortstop who could at least field?
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
McFAQ for all you newcomers out there.
Man where is the love for Eric Surkamp. You’d think a lefty 20 year-old with an astronomical K/9 rate and control would get ranked somewhere…
Croix De Candlestick: You'll be a better person for reading
Crawford?
why is brandon crawford rated so high? it appears from countless reports that his glove and arm are for real and are almost if not already major league ready. however, based on reports about his bat, he makes very little contact by striking out a ton and there aren’t many positive reports about his potential with the bat as he continues to move up the minors. is this projection solely based on the legitimacy of his glove alone?
After the Ehire debate above, I wouldn’t even venture to say it’s just on his glove.
Crawford has quite a bit of adjustments to do, but I like his ability to. It would be hard for any player, even a good college player, to succeed much in Double-A in his first full year. I think he will adjust well, and bring his walk rate back up a bit. One thing that I noted was that his strikeout rate and his walk rate spiked at the same time in July. That means he wasn’t missing pitches, he was letting the wrong pitches go by. I think he’ll adjust to those breaking pitches quickly.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
Brute, what exactly do you mean when you say “likelihood to be a major leaguer”? Are you talking about players who will ever appear in the majors, players who will float in and off rosters for a couple years? What exactly in your mind does a player have to do to “become a major leaguer.”
Let’s take for instance the controversial case of relievers. Let’s say Merkin Valdez never catches on with anybody else’s bullpen. Was he in your mind a major leaguer? Or take a more successful example from our recent past: Chad Zerbe. He pitched 150 innings over 4 years, had one very very good year for us in 2002, and was gone shortly thereafter. Does 150 inning career qualify for your definition?
Or how about someone like Jerome Williams? He’s thrown over 100 innings in a season 3 times (and has a career ERA+ of 101!), but struggled and ultimately failed to establish himself as a major league starter. When you’re looking at the likelihood of, say, a Kevin Pucetas becoming a major leaguer are you thinking of a career equal to or less than a Jerome Williams?
One of my problems with the “likelihood” argument for ranking prospects is this vagueness of definition. What’s the cutoff in your view?
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I’m not a ceiling whore but should I really care if non-relief ace arms like Turpen reach the majors? It seems to me that guys like Turpen are in demand at every level and can be cheaply acquired like Brandon Medders was.
I would like to see some clarification, too. Because there might be a good chance that Turpen does reach the majors, but his ceiling is so low it makes me wonder, should we care?
#1 FanShot Champion
And non-relief ace should be relief non-ace no? I would think a non-relief ace arm would be an ace starter. Or I suppose you could have just missed a hypen and meant non-relief-ace arm.
If you're a lefty you can turn that into a 126 million dollar contract
assuming of course that you can play the guitar
Kevin Frandsen: The best SS on the Giants roster
Hoping for BowkerMania to hit AT&T Park in 2010
Again, ‘available’ does not mean easy to find, or that you can count on it. The more players you have that fill out major league roles that you can count on being there, the better.
Obviously, Dan Turpen is less valuable than a Lincecum, a Sandoval, or even a Schierholtz. But when he makes the majors and sticks, he’s worth more than some overhyped 18-year old who flames out by 21 at the Single-A level.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:35 PM PST up reply actions
Of course a regular relief arm is more valuable than a flamed-out prospect, but hindsight is 20/20. Turpen’s a little old for A+, and besides the shiny ERA, doesn’t seem all that great. 3.0 BB/9 is good, but he seems to have decent K-rates only when he’s walking a lot of guys, and his WHIP is pretty high even with the low walk rates.
And the guy directly below him, Bucardo, showed very similar stats across the board in a level more age-appropriate and as a starter. A couple spots after that is Craig Clark, who is two years older at the same level, but is a starter with better K/9 and BB/9. And then of course there’s Surkamp, a LH starter who’s one year younger with a much better K/BB ratio. Stats-wise, I feel like all these guys are comparable, but they all are starters, which makes them more likely to make the majors IMO; it’s hard to convert a reliever to a starter but very easy to convert a starter to a reliever, and they typically get better.
it’s hard to convert a reliever to a starter but very easy to convert a starter to a reliever, and they typically get better.
I wonder how true this is. Now, I’m not doubting that a minor league starter of a certain performance is a better bet to make the majors than a minor league reliever, but rather, wondering how hard it is to convert from starter to reliever to starter. First point – I would imagine most of the more talented pitchers get a shot at being a starter, so that’s probably a pretty influential reason why a starter will have a higher chance of making it to the bigs than a reliever. For a reliever to turn into a starter, he needs two things best I can tell – the stamina to do it, and a third pitch (if his first two were good enough to be a two pitch starter he would be given a chance to start to begin with, I would think) to get through the lineup multiple times. How many of these guys that have been put into reliever roles early on don’t have a third pitch and are unlikely to develop one?
On the other side, is it that easy to convert from a starter to a reliever? Going shorter innings you get to throw harder, so that could help. You also don’t have to go through the lineup multiple times, another positive factor. On the other hand, I wonder if the conversion is really that easy or it’s more that the starters are the more talented pitchers in general and that’s what makes them look so good….? I don’t really have an answer to this question.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 6:58 AM PST up reply actions
I have the impression that pitchers almost universally have better numbers when moved from the rotation to the bullpen. There’s some selection bias at work, no doubt, but that result jibes with the logical sense of how it should go.
I do think that teams should be more aggressive about trying successful relievers as starters.
I have the impression that pitchers almost universally have better numbers when moved from the rotation to the bullpen.
And that’s a better way of saying what I was trying to say initially. My question is – how different is this from successful relievers being moved to starters, and how much of it is selection bias vs. simply being easier to pitch in a relief role?
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 7:43 AM PST up reply actions
I would imagine the few relievers who are converted to starters mostly succeed because of selection bias, and that a lot of starters who convert to relief aren’t successful because they convert out of necessity, not opportunity (i.e. they aren’t good enough to be starters). It’s a highly different dynamic, because starters are much more valuable than relievers, and because starters can convert to relief, while the opposite isn’t generally true; if a SP converts to RP because he’s not good enough to make the majors as a SP then he probably won’t be switching back to SP.
So I believe that generally, SP→RP results in better performance, while RP→SP has the opposite effect. For some pitchers, the decrease is worth it, because it’s small enough that the added value of being a starter outweighs it (i.e. 2.00 ERA as a RP to a 3.00 ERA as a starter is worth it). But the SP that convert to relief are going to be the worse ones overall, otherwise they would keep starting, and they’ll probably get better, because they have to throw less innings and face each batter only once, leaving less time for adjustment and the ability to just throw everything for one or two innings, whereas a SP needs to watch their pitch count to make sure they toss 5-6 innings.
Basically, I think that in the real world, converts on both sides typically add value, but that a lot more SP convert to RP, and there’s a significant selection bias for RP→SP; if you converted the same number, most RP→SP would probably lose value.
Four Words
Merkin Valdez.
Jonathan Sanchez.
Neither thrived, and in fact seemed to have good runs negated after moves to the bullpen. That whole lightning in a bottle thing didn’t work out.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 5, 2010 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
Do we really know that Sanchez wouldn’t be a good reliever? He’s only thrown 60+ innings as a reliever at the majors in his career and his stats don’t look that much different from his time as a starter. Good strikeout rate, not very good control.
Historically, when starters convert to a relief role they improve for a variety of reasons (they strike out more hitters, they don’t have to go through a batting order multiple times, stamina issues, etc.). I’m not sure 2 players (one with extensive arm issues) disprove that historical trend.
#1 FanShot Champion
Yep, Sanchez is a splendid example of a pitcher who did much better in the pen than in the rotation. Check his splits in the minors in 2006.
With Valdez there’s not enough sample size to tell, plus there was the whole injury issue.
If I’m reading it right, he only pitched 21 innings in his minor league career out of the bullpen, right? Still, he posted a 1.91 FIP in that SSS.
#1 FanShot Champion
Well, most of that was in his highly abbreviated EL season, and he was pretty well destroying the league from any role that year. His FIP as a starter that year was 2.70 (with a 11.3 K/9), so it’s not like there was a dramatic improvement in his performance when they suddenly shifted him to bullpen. I’ve always thought if they’d just left him in the CT rotation for that entire season, instead of trying to plug an immediate hole in the major league bullpen (on a team that was going nowhere very very fast), his development would have gone a lot smoother the last few years.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
But when he makes the majors and sticks, he’s worth more than some overhyped 18-year old who flames out by 21 at the Single-A level.
Putting aside the question of whether Turpen sticks as a major leaguer, this takes me back to a previous conversation, in that the tone of your comment makes it sound like the perceptions or others, and more specifically your irritation at the perception of others, becomes an (inversely proportional) element in your evaluations.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I won't deny...
…I do sometimes try to be a little different if only to stimulate conversation.
What can I say, I’ve never been much for choruses.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 5, 2010 12:52 AM PST up reply actions
That’s fair enough, but remember (the sentimentality of later ages aside), Cervantes was creating a fool when he wrote Quixote.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
I would say someone I’d expect to be a ‘regular’ major leaguer for at least five seasons, and ideally more. Regular meaning not bouncing back and forth between the majors and minors, and getting regular playing time.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:32 PM PST up reply actions
That’s really about my feelings as well for what somebody needs to do to be a valuable prospect. What’s interesting is the dramatic way that people’s expectations on those kinds of things diverge. For me, I probably have a very fundamental skepticism that “low ceiling” players can achieve that kind of consistent play. So I will downgrade Matt Downs, Ryan Rohlinger, etc. because I don’t believe they’ll make it to that 5 year mark, because they’re fighting against opportunities. They not only have to have the opportunity open for them (and take advantage of it), but then not have anybody coming up behind them (or coming in from outside the organization) that would represent an upgrade to the team from their “low-ceiling” skills.
A pitcher like Kevin Pucetas may have a slight advantage on that because of the scarcity of decent starting pitchers, but even then teams will probably always be looking to upgrade that spot even if he manages to make it in the majors, a la Pat Misch, for instance, who actually performed decently well with the Mets last year, but even on a pretty crappy Mets rotation, he’s currently on the outside looking in for the #5 spot or a swing spot in the bullpen — he’s a guy who’s position will never be “safe” and will likely end up with a pretty short career.
Ultimately, we don’t know if say Nate Schierholtz is going to be a major league regular yet or Kevin Frandsen, and Downs and Rohlinger are definitely fighting uphill battles. And yet these seem to me to be the kinds of players who are frequently rated highly on these lists because of their greater “certainty” of contributing as major leaguers. My feeling always errs on the side of the higher ceiling guys or higher tools guys because, for one thing, I think they’ll ultimately get more opportunities to try to succeed. One great tool (a la Adrianza’s alledged glove, or even Eugenio’s speed) will catch more eyes when it comes to handing out opportunities then several average ones, I think. That’s I guess why Ford’s age and repeating levels issues don’t cause me to downgrade him as much as I would others in the same situations, because he seems to have two off the charts skills (speed and D at a premium position) that are going to get him multiple looks.
So for instance, Fred Lewis’ Giants career isn’t going to last long, but his tools will probably entice other organizations to give him a few more shots. But Kevin Frandsen is going to have to have some real luck on his side to get somebody to give him that Skip Schumaker opportunity (who by the way, is also not yet a certainty of having a career that qualifies by your definition of being a major league regular), and then hang on to it.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Yeah, when you think about it, the five-year-regular standard should caused random upside longshots to be ranked higher, not lower. Tommy Joseph, sight unseen, has a much greater chance of being a regular major leaguer than Kevin Pucetas, just by virtue of being a second-round draft choice. It’s not even close.
Wow, that’s a high standard. By this standard, Brian Wilson and Jonathan Sanchez and Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp are not yet true major leaguers. Noah Lowry is not and probably never will be a regular major leaguer.
Poor Noah. When people look back on this board many years from now, he’ll just be another random ex-Giant, whose career in the books doesn’t look a whole lot discernably different from Kelly Downs or William van Landingham or Jerome Williams.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Interesting list, Brute
Did Craig Westcott get any consideration for the top 50? I understand that he was old for the short season leagues, but he posted some really solid numbers and has a pretty live arm.
by Wonderful Terrific Monds on Mar 3, 2010 8:56 AM PST reply actions
Honestly the age versus level hurt him. That’s been a problem with past rankings, so I put less of a premium on good numbers down there. If he does it again in Augusta or San Jose, he’ll make the list.
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
Reply fail
"The knowledge of the game is inversely proportional to the price of the seat." ---Bill Veeck. •Check out the new look of SFDugout.com•
by BruteSentiment on Mar 3, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
I don’t get Maday ahead of Sanchez, Rohlinger, Sosa, Ford, Adrianza, etc. Sure, he was good in A and A+, but he’s been pretty awful in AA despite being age-appropriate. The fact that he’s a starter is good, and so is the control, but 4.4 K/9 in AA as a 23-year-old? A 1.42 WHIP despite 2.9 BB/9? That seems to me like he’s putting stuff in the zone with nothing on it and getting knocked around.
Pucetas
You may be correct in your evaluation of him, but no need to make him the 5th starter if the other guys are healthy. Bumgarner is going to be a bigger winner than Timmy.
Bumgarner is going to be a bigger winner than Timmy.
I think I asked you this in another thread without an answer. Why do you think Bumgarner is so good already?
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 6:59 AM PST up reply actions
I agree that right now, Bumgarner is a better bet to produce at the ML level than Pucetas, but I think the added value of keeping him in the minors for another year (to work on his offspeed and breaking stuff) is higher. I imagine he could do one of the following:
2010-2015: 1-2 WAR, 2-3 WAR, 3-4 WAR, 4-5 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 5-6 WAR
2011-2016: 1-2 WAR, 2.5-3 WAR, 4-5 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 6-7 WAR
Obviously that’s just spitballing, but I think he’ll develop into a better pitcher faster without the pressure of psuedo-contention, and because of that prefix, we won’t really need his production over Pucetas’.
2010-2015: 1-2 WAR, 2-3 WAR, 3-4 WAR, 4-5 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 5-6 WAR
2011-2016: 1-2 WAR, 2.5-3 WAR, 4-5 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 6-7 WAR
This is along the line of my thoughts. I don’t have actual estimate and haven’t thought about exact numbers, but I think our goal should be to maximize the 6 team/cost controlled years we have him at the MLB level, and that means let him stay in the minors longer to work on improving, especially since he has stuff he so obviously needs to work on (offspeed stuff), and the minors will probably be a better situation for him to work on it.
In general, I think a lot of people are thinking about prospects wrong – from GM’s to Keith Law (who tends to advocate bringinging guys up as early as they’re ready to contribute anything at the MLB level). It’s about maximizing the value you get out of these guys when they’re cheap/controlled. From that standpoint, it’s better to leave a guy in the minors too long than bring him up too early. There’s probably a limit to how much a guy can improve at lower levels, but most of these guys definitely can and should be able to improve some, and the goal should be to not bring them up until they’re close to as ready to make an impact in MLB as possible.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 9:00 AM PST up reply actions
2010-2015: 1-2 WAR, 2-3 WAR, 3-4 WAR, 4-5 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 5-6 WAR
2011-2016: 1-2 WAR, 2.5-3 WAR, 4-5 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 5-6 WAR, 6-7 WAR
Do young players, especially pitchers, really tend to improve at such a methodical rate, though? I would think a development pattern like that would be fairly unusual. Seems like there’s usually more leaps and falls and jagged up ands downs in young player’s development arcs.
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Like I said, I was just throwing out numbers. Sure, he could go 1-2 WAR 1-2 WAR 4-5 WAR 4-5 WAR 4-5 WAR 4-5 WAR 6-7 WAR. The point was was Missing Barry said: leaving him in the minors for another year increases the likelihood he’ll figure things out there and not here, where it’s cheaper. The marginal upgrade of Bumgarner over Pucetas for this year is not as valuable as the extra year of solid production we get by not wasting a cheap one.
He could also go something like 1-2, 2-3, 7-8, 4-5, zero, zero.
Pitchers are high risk. The chance that they’ll burn out quickly is too high not to bring them up as soon as they’re ready to help the team.
“As soon as they’re ready to help the team” doesn’t always seem apt IMO. Bumgarner could have helped the team last year out of the ‘pen. He could do the same this year if Wellemeyer/Johnson/Pucetas gets the 5th starter job. The objective is to maximize value, and that doesn’t happen until the player has spent an appropriate amount of time in the minors developing their skills to an MLB level, especially on a team without a pressing need (and if there’s one thing the Giants have, it’s starting pitching).
Considering we can’t predict the future, assuming he’s going to go all Mark Prior on us is kind of silly; it’s better to err on the side of probability, and I think it’s more likely he has 5-6 productive years, so I want to maximize what we get out of those. And I do think there’s something to be said for pacing (or the Verducci Effect, if you want to call it that); the relevancy of increasing workloads is disputed, but call me crazy, I think a big innings jump can negatively affect a pitcher.
Prior’s an extreme case, but the general pattern is not uncommon at all. I’d guess that 25 percent of decent young pitchers have lost all or most of their value by the time they hit free agency.
And you have to think about the ultimate goal. If “the objective is to maximize value,” it’s not for its own sake; it’s because that makes the team more likely to win. But trading helping-the-team-win-now for a hypothetical helping-the-team-win-even-more down the road doesn’t make a lot of sense.
But trading helping-the-team-win-now for a hypothetical helping-the-team-win-even-more down the road doesn’t make a lot of sense.
As a long term strategy it does…
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 6:51 AM PST up reply actions
quincy
I am definitely with you on this view. Maximizing value leads me to believe that Madison should be in AAA this year.
"And we plead and we pray for a glimmer of day,
As the night folds its wings and descends, exposing the loose ends."
Proud adoptive parent of Sergio Romo. Looking forward to adopting Justin Smoak.
The chance that they’ll burn out quickly is too high not to bring them up as soon as they’re ready to help the team.
When we’re talking about young pitchers, I don’t buy the notion that “an arm has a certain number of pitches in it”. Especially a 20 year old like Bumgarner, even if we leave him in the minors for a couple of years, by the time he’s done with that 6th year he’ll still be in his prime. Is there any reason to think the likelihood of injury is any greater when he’s 1-2 years older than when he’s younger? I would even suggest the opposite – the minors is the perfect place to ease a 20 year old’s workload up to where it needs to be and treat them with kiddie gloves until they’re really ready to go, rather than doing it while you’re wasting MLB service time. So unless there’s evidence the chance of injury increases over a later 6 year period than an earlier one, I don’t see a reason why that’s a factor.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 10:38 AM PST up reply actions
Even if we were to buy the notion that an arm has as certain number of pitches in it (which I don’t either), we can’t possibly know how many until we use up all the pitches, so assuming it’s one particular figure or another is pointless, because you could just as well be overly conservative with a durable arm or overly aggressive with a fragile one as appropriately cautious with a fragile one or appropriately aggressive with a durable one. There’s just no way to know, so it’s pointless to guess.
It’s a fool’s errand to try to calculate whether they’re going to get hurt earlier or later; the point is that they get hurt. Attrition is a lot higher for good pitchers than for good hitters, which significantly undercuts the wisdom of holding them in the minors as long as possible.
Not that this applies to Bumgarner, who’s probably not one of the 12 best pitchers on the team yet, and is almost certainly not ready to contribute to any significant degree.
I don’t know, at this point, I think our knowledge on the subject is limited, but if I was a GM, I’d definitely make sure I had more detailed research into the injury issue so I could figure out the best way to maximize the value, which I still think is the correct goal (but of course it has to take probability of injuries into account).
by Missing Barry on Mar 5, 2010 6:53 AM PST up reply actions
I think he’s in the top 12, and I think he could be a valuable bullpen arm or a decent starter. He may or may not have his velocity back, but he’s still a lefty who throws 90 MPH with a deceptive delivery and meh offspeed and breaking stuff. And yes, it’s true that holding Bumgarner in the minors for longer increases the chance that he won’t help the ML club, but I think you’re putting waaaaay too much emphasis on the possibility he’ll get hurt and ignoring the probability that he won’t (or at least not in any significant way). Injuries are not so terrifying that we must do whatever we can to make sure we get something out of players before they get hurt; even serious injuries typically just mean a longer recovery time.
Basically, keeping him in the minors means that he will be cheap for an extra year, he’ll be better when he breaks into the bigs, and he won’t be relied upon by a playoff contender, which could increase physical and mental straing. It also means there’s a higher probability he’ll be injured before he can contribute to the major league team. On the other hand, even if he’s out for two years, that’ll make him 22 when he gets back, and age-appropriate for AA. Assuming he gets hurt next year and never pitches again (a very, very unlikely assumption), he’ll probably accumulate a career total of max 1 WAR; I’ll trade risking that 1 WAR for the 3-5 extra WAR, if not more, that we’ll get by waiting till he’s ready.
leaving him in the minors for another year increases the likelihood he’ll figure things out there and not here, where it’s cheaper.
I certainly wouldn’t be upset by seeing him get some more time in the minors, however I do think that the either/or dichotomy oversimplifies matters somewhat. He’s certainly going to have to figure things out both there and here; and then if manages that probably he’ll have to figure things out here and here again a couple more times. That’s just the nature of the beast init?
My Bucardo is better than yours.
A hot August weekday, before a small crowd, when the only thing at stake is the tissue-thin difference between a thing done well and a thing done ill. Insofar as the clutch hitter is not a sportswriter's myth, it is a vulgarity, like a writer who writes only for money.
Definitely; there are things that young players pick up at the MLB level that they can’t pick up in the minors, but I doubt Bumgarner’s reached that level yet. He still has things to work on, and stuff to learn at AA/AAA, and I see no reason we should pay him $400K and waste a cheap year so he can learn things he could learn in the less expensive minors. Guys like Schierholtz and Bowker really have little to learn in the minors, so they should probably join the ML team, because that’s the only place that will really contribute to their development; the only thing keeping them in the minors does is age them a year. But that’s not the case with Bumgarner.
He’s certainly going to have to figure things out both there and here
Definitely agree. The thought process is he stays in the minors a little longer, and figures out things he can figure out in the minors (like getting game repetition on his off speed pitches to improve his control/command and consistency on them), making him a better pitcher. Then you bring him up to the majors at a higher level than he would have been previously – he still has plenty to learn at the MLB level still, for sure, but it seems he’ll be starting from a higher level to give you the extra production you want.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 10:41 AM PST up reply actions
I dunno, at least for me the numbers were just a hypothetical example, and I got the same impression from quincy – so I don’t think it was meant to be realistic or anything.
by Missing Barry on Mar 4, 2010 10:34 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
