PDA

View Full Version : Baseball Prospectus Top 101 prospects - and a shocker



dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:08 PM
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=10142

1. Stephen Strasburg, RHP, Nationals
2. Jason Heyward, OF, Braves
3. Neftali Feliz, RHP, Rangers
4. Jesus Montero, C, Yankees
5. Mike Stanton, OF, Marlins
6. Pedro Alvarez, 3B, Pirates
7. Desmond Jennings, OF, Rays
8. Carlos Santana, C, Indians
9. Buster Posey, C, Giants
10. Aroldis Chapman, LHP, Reds
11. Chris Carter, 1B, Athletics
12. Dustin Ackley, OF/2B, Mariners
13. Jeremy Hellickson, RHP, Rays
14. Ryan Westmoreland, OF, Red Sox
15. Martin Perez, LHP, Rangers
16. Kyle Drabek, RHP, Blue Jays
17. Justin Smoak, 1B, Rangers
18. Brian Matusz, LHP, Orioles
19. Alcides Escobar, SS, Brewers
20. Michael Taylor, OF, Athletics
21. Madison Bumgarner, LHP, Giants
22. Christian Friedrich, LHP, Rockies
23. Tyler Matzek, LHP, Rockies
24. Domonic Brown, OF, Phillies
25. Jacob Turner, RHP, Tigers
26. Aaron Hicks, of, Twins
27. Dee Gordon, SS, Dodgers
28. Derek Norris, C, Nationals
29. Donovan Tate, OF, Padres
30. Casey Kelly, RHP, Red Sox
31. Josh Vitters, 3B, Cubs
32. Casey Crosby, LHP, Tigers
33. Julio Teheran, RHP, Braves
34. Wade Davis, RHP, Rays
35. Miguel Sano, SS, Twins
36. Mike Montgomery, LHP, Royals
37. Starlin Castro, SS, Cubs
38. Shelby Miller, RHP, Cardinals
39. Josh Bell, 3B, Orioles
40. Chris Withrow, RHP, Dodgers
41. Matt Moore, LHP, Rays
42. Alex Colome, LHP, Rays
43. Lonnie Chisenhall, 3B, Indians
44. Brett Wallace, 1B, Blue Jays
45. Arodys Vizcaino, RHP, Braves
46. Ben Revere, OF, Twins
47. Simon Castro, RHP, Padres
48. Jennry Mejia, RHP, Mets
49. Austin Jackson, of, Tigers
50. Logan Morrison, 1B, Marlins
51. Freddie Freeman, 1B, Braves
52. Jarrod Parker, RHP, Diamondbacks
53. Mike Trout, OF, Angels
54. Aaron Crow, RHP, Royals
55. Dan Hudson, RHP, White Sox
56. Tim Beckham, SS, Rays
57. Scott Sizemore, 2B, Tigers
58. Josh Reddick, OF, Red Sox
59. Mike Leake, RHP, Reds
60. Drew Storen, RHP, Nationals
61. Jared Mitchell, OF, White Sox
62. Michael Saunders, OF, Mariners
63. Hak-Ju Lee, SS, Cubs
64. James Darnell, 3B, Padres
65. Wilson Ramos, C, Twins
66. Michael Inoa, RHP, Athletics
67. Todd Frazier, 2B, Reds
68. Tanner Scheppers, RHP, Rangers
69. Reid Brignac, SS, Rays
70. Jake Arrieta, RHP, Orioles
71. Kyle Gibson, RHP, Twins
72. Tyler Flowers, C, White Sox
73. Zach Britton, RHP, Orioles
74. Jaff Decker, OF, Padres
75. Tony Sanchez, C, Pirates
76. Ryan Kalish, OF, Red Sox
77. Alex White, RHP, Indians
78. Phillippe Aumount, RHP, Phillies
79. Mike Moustakas, 3B, Royals
80. Fernando Martinez, OF, Mets
81. Hank Conger, C, Angels
82. Jason Knapp, RHP, Indians
83. Wil Myers, C, Royals
84. Wilmer Flores, SS, Mets
85. Brandon Allen, 1B, Diamondbacks
86. Grant Green, SS, Athletics
87. Ike Davis, 1B, Mets
88. Zach Wheeler, RHP, Giants
89. Jordan Walden, RHP, Angels
90. Jose Tabata, OF, Pirates
91. Nick Hagadone, LHP, Indians
92. Trevor Reckling, LHP, Angels
93. Tim Melville, RHP, Royals
94. Gabriel Noriega, SS, Mariners
95. Fabio Martinez, RHP, Angels
96. Brett Jackson, OF, Cubs
97. Jio Mier, SS, Astros
98. Ethan Martin, RHP, Dodgers
99. Brett Lawrie, 2B, Brewers
100. Jason Castro, C, Astros
101. Danny Espinosa, SS, Nationals

REDblooded
03-03-2010, 02:17 PM
still think Alonso should be rated #1 prospect in the organization Doug?


;)

JK of course... Really can't believe he's not on that list... Had to check it twice...

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:18 PM
still think Alonso should be rated #1 prospect in the organization Doug?


;)

JK of course... Really can't believe he's not on that list... Had to check it twice...

I checked it a few times, then did a search for both Reds and Alonso in firefox for spelling errors. How one goes from a 5 start prospect in 2009 to beating the crap out of the FSL to a wrist injury to a 3 star prospect and not inside a Top 101 prospect list is mind boggling to me.

Scrap Irony
03-03-2010, 02:27 PM
His AFL season, injury, and major questions about his ability to hit LH (not to mention the lesser questions of power and position) would do it for me, though, to be fair, I do think Alonso is a Top 100 prospect.

bigredbunter
03-03-2010, 02:36 PM
It's surprising how few 2b are on that list. Only 4...I guess few players are ever really drafted as primarily 2b, though.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 02:41 PM
His AFL season, injury, and major questions about his ability to hit LH (not to mention the lesser questions of power and position) would do it for me, though, to be fair, I do think Alonso is a Top 100 prospect.

Well his AFL season ties in with the injury. My question is this too - why does Alonso get bumped but Justin Smoak does not? Smoak dealt with an injury this season, hit for far less power despite being in much more hitter friendly leagues (while Alonso was in the worst league in the minors for 80% of his season) and also struggled to hit lefties big time? Smoak hit .214/.301/.325 vs lefties last season. It just confuses me when things like that happen.

OnBaseMachine
03-03-2010, 03:04 PM
It's pretty funny that Yonder Alonso isn't ranked, nor is Juan Francisco, but the horribly overrated Josh Vitters is #31.

And if Miguel Angel Sano is #35, then why isn't Yorman Rodriguez ranked?

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 03:08 PM
It's pretty funny that Yonder Alonso isn't ranked, nor is Juan Francisco, but the horribly overrated Josh Vitters is #31.

And if Miguel Angel Sano is #35, then why isn't Yorman Rodriguez ranked?

Good questions all around.

edabbs44
03-03-2010, 03:29 PM
Here's the depressing part:

Out of the last 4 drafts, we have one guy in the majors and two guys on the list, none in the top 58. Two of our 1st rounders don't show up and the guy in the majors may or may not have shown up on this list if he was eligible.

We have also had some uninspiring seasons leading to top half picks in most (all?) of those drafts.

Sweet.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 03:36 PM
Here's the depressing part:

Out of the last 4 drafts, we have one guy in the majors and two guys on the list, none in the top 58. Two of our 1st rounders don't show up and the guy in the majors may or may not have shown up on this list if he was eligible.

We have also had some uninspiring seasons leading to top half picks in most (all?) of those drafts.

Sweet.

Or you could look at it another way - our worst showing on any offseason list had us with 3 Top 75 prospects in baseball despite recent graduations of Cueto, Votto, Stubbs, Bailey and Bruce.

edabbs44
03-03-2010, 03:39 PM
Or you could look at it another way - our worst showing on any offseason list had us with 3 Top 75 prospects in baseball despite recent graduations of Cueto, Votto, Stubbs, Bailey and Bruce.

I'm not sure how recent some of those grads are.

I don't think that Stubbs would be very high on the list.

I am speaking about drafts only.

We've had better than average draft positioning over the past few years so, all things being equal, we should have better than average performance. 2 draftees in the top 101 sucks.

lollipopcurve
03-03-2010, 03:40 PM
You can't get too worked up over these lists. They say little that is definitive.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 03:43 PM
I'm not sure how recent some of those grads are.

I don't think that Stubbs would be very high on the list.

I am speaking about drafts only.

We've had better than average draft positioning over the past few years so, all things being equal, we should have better than average performance. 2 draftees in the top 101 sucks.

Frazier, Alonso and Leake have all been ranked as Top 50 prospects by other lists this offseason alone. Our last 3 drafts have provided Top 50 prospects.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 03:55 PM
Doug (Cincinnati): So you are down on Alonso for not showing power (despite slugging nearly .500 in the FSL) but love Justin Smoak for slugging .440 in the PCL and Texas League combined, while hitting lefties just as bad as Alonso did in 2009? Care to go into that one?

Kevin Goldstein: Sure. Smoak is a much, much better pure HITTER than Alonso, and more scouts believe in Smoak's power blossoming than those that believe in Alonso's.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 03:57 PM
I think Justin Smoak is going to be Ted Williams if KG is right because all I have ever seen written or talked about with Alonso is that the guy is a pure hitter. If Smoak is a much, much better pure hitter than Alonso the guy should be ranked #1 overall.

lollipopcurve
03-03-2010, 04:03 PM
The rankings have always favored Smoak because he's a switch hitter and is said to play better defense.

Only time will tell.

New Fever
03-03-2010, 04:04 PM
I'm not sure how recent some of those grads are.

I don't think that Stubbs would be very high on the list.

I am speaking about drafts only.

We've had better than average draft positioning over the past few years so, all things being equal, we should have better than average performance. 2 draftees in the top 101 sucks.

KG loves Stubbs he would have been in the Top 50 on this list easy. He ranked Stubbs #4 in the system under 25 list, ahead of Cueto, Leake, Frazier. He was only behind Bailey, Bruce, and Chapman.

RedsManRick
03-03-2010, 04:11 PM
A few Alonso tidbits from Goldstein:



Lincoln (Dallas): You've been reasonaly high on Yonder Alonso in the past, what made him drop off the list this time when a guy like Carter is so high?

Kevin Goldstein: The fact that he showed little power and did utterly nothing against lefties. I've written many times my feelings on first base prospects. If you don't look like some kind of No. 3 or 4 hitter on a championship level team, just how good of a first base prospect are you?



Doug (Cincinnati): So you are down on Alonso for not showing power (despite slugging nearly .500 in the FSL) but love Justin Smoak for slugging .440 in the PCL and Texas League combined, while hitting lefties just as bad as Alonso did in 2009? Care to go into that one?

Kevin Goldstein: Sure. Smoak is a much, much better pure HITTER than Alonso, and more scouts believe in Smoak's power blossoming than those that believe in Alonso's.

I'm guessing I know who that Doug is... I wonder what he means by "HITTER". What sort of performance difference will that make? It must be nice to never have to back up an argument with numbers....

Here's what I don't understand (and I submitted questions in the chat accordingly)


Aaron (YYZ): Brett Wallace: Offensive dynamo or younger, cheaper Lyle Overbay?

Kevin Goldstein: You stole my Brett Wallace comp!

1B prospect Brett Wallace is ranked #44 overall. Lyle Overbay has an .812 career OPS and has eclipsed .850 just twice. Clearly that is not "some kind of No. 3 or 4 hitter on a championship level team" territory. What gives, Kevin?

OnBaseMachine
03-03-2010, 04:16 PM
Great catch Rick. I overlooked Brett Wallace. Give me Yonder Alonso over Wallace any day of the week.

lollipopcurve
03-03-2010, 04:18 PM
I'd rather Reds prospects get underhyped than overhyped -- it motivates.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 04:26 PM
I'm guessing I know who that Doug is...

If you guessed me, then you guessed right. Its just all confusing. Everything we have ever seen/read/heard says Alonso is flat out a pure hitter. If Smoak is that much better, is he going to be Ted Williams? Last season KG said Alonso's ceiling was .300/.400/.550. Somewhere this season that turned into less than an .800 OPS or so given where Brett Wallace is ranked.

RedsManRick
03-03-2010, 04:29 PM
If you guessed me, then you guessed right. Its just all confusing. Everything we have ever seen/read/heard says Alonso is flat out a pure hitter. If Smoak is that much better, is he going to be Ted Williams? Last season KG said Alonso's ceiling was .300/.400/.550. Somewhere this season that turned into less than an .800 OPS or so given where Brett Wallace is ranked.

I think the combination of the AA performance, the wrist injury, and the lefties split issue have significantly reduced Goldstein's expectation that Alonso will reach that ceiling. Mostly just one of those "gut" calls where the warts trumped the pedigree in his mind.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 04:36 PM
I think the combination of the AA performance, the wrist injury, and the lefties split issue have significantly reduced Goldstein's expectation that Alonso will reach that ceiling. Mostly just one of those "gut" calls where the warts trumped the pedigree in his mind.

Sure, but it still doesn't explain the combo of AA/AAA performance for Smoak, which was worse than Alonso's (.861 OPS for Alonso - .853 for Smoak) despite Smoak playing in two much more friendly run environments, or Smoak hitting lefties just as bad as Alonso did.

Benihana
03-03-2010, 04:39 PM
Trade Joey Votto! :devil:

Benihana
03-03-2010, 04:41 PM
Sure, but it still doesn't explain the combo of AA/AAA performance for Smoak, which was worse than Alonso's (.861 OPS for Alonso - .853 for Smoak) despite Smoak playing in two much more friendly run environments, or Smoak hitting lefties just as bad as Alonso did.

Run friendly? Maybe.

But it's also two levels ahead. Don't forget that.

I'd take a guy who OPSed .50 points lower in run friendly GAB than a guy who in the pitching friendly Southern League, especially if they were the same age.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 04:43 PM
Run friendly? Maybe.

But it's also two levels ahead. Don't forget that.

I'd take a guy who OPSed .200 points lower in run friendly GAB than a guy who in the pitching friendly Southern League, especially if they were the same age.
Smoak was only 1 level ahead. Alonso was at A+ and AA, Smoak at AA and AAA. He also played in a largely different league setting. The difference between where Alonso was playing and where Smoak was playing is about the difference between Petco and GABP. Alonso still out hit him.

Benihana
03-03-2010, 04:46 PM
Smoak was only 1 level ahead. Alonso was at A+ and AA, Smoak at AA and AAA. He also played in a largely different league setting. The difference between where Alonso was playing and where Smoak was playing is about the difference between Petco and GABP. Alonso still out hit him.

Don't buy it, not for a second.

Smoak OPS'ed .930 in AA. Alonso OPS'ed .820 in AA.

Where was he outhit?

Smoak switch-hits, plays better defense, and has always been considered a better prospect by at least 90% of analysts, including prior to the draft. Smoak has mashed in AA, whereas Alonso was underwhelming. Where is the comparison?

edabbs44
03-03-2010, 04:55 PM
Smoak was only 1 level ahead. Alonso was at A+ and AA, Smoak at AA and AAA. He also played in a largely different league setting. The difference between where Alonso was playing and where Smoak was playing is about the difference between Petco and GABP. Alonso still out hit him.

Isn't Smoak a plus defender?

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 05:50 PM
Don't buy it, not for a second.

Smoak OPS'ed .930 in AA. Alonso OPS'ed .820 in AA.

Where was he outhit?

Smoak switch-hits, plays better defense, and has always been considered a better prospect by at least 90% of analysts, including prior to the draft. Smoak has mashed in AA, whereas Alonso was underwhelming. Where is the comparison?

Smoak after his injury fell apart in AAA (sounds just like Alonso, but one level lower). Smoak may switch hit, but he can't hit lefties (at least not if you think Alonso can't hit lefties - peripherals and numbers are almost exactly the same vs lefties). Smoak plays better defense, but its a small amount better. Pre draft reports on Smoak having plus defense were far exaggerated and still hang around some for some reason. Is Smoak a better prospect? I can buy the argument that he is, though I think if he is its by a small amount. The comparison is that we have two guys with extremely similar skills who beat up a league in the first half, got injured and then didn't perform as well after the injury in the second half who both play the same position and have not proven they can hit lefties (though I believe both will be able to in time). One guy goes from a .950 OPS ceiling (KG said this last year on Alonso) to a guy at least 58 spots behind another first baseman who was compared to Lyle Overbay (Brett Wallace), while Justin Smoak stays a Top 20 prospect.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 05:52 PM
Isn't Smoak a plus defender?

No. There were some reports pre draft about that and well, its simply not true. Right now he is an average first baseman.

Kingspoint
03-03-2010, 06:02 PM
I checked it a few times, then did a search for both Reds and Alonso in firefox for spelling errors. How one goes from a 5 start prospect in 2009 to beating the crap out of the FSL to a wrist injury to a 3 star prospect and not inside a Top 101 prospect list is mind boggling to me.

The group at baseball prospectus that decided Alonso is not a Top-100 prospect has lost their minds.

They've just lost all credibility with me.

They obvioulsy didn't "watch" him last season, or they wouldn't rank him so ridiculously low. It's OK to be wrong about a couple of guys, but not a guy who "starred" in College, was drafted exactly where he should have been in the draft, and has done nothing to change his original projections other than have an injury that caused him to miss considerable time and approach his hitting slightly differently from normal.

It all doesn't matter, as a year from now he'll be playing in the Majors and making everyone who "thought" he had no power or couldn't hit look like fools for "guessing" on his abilities instead of taking a look at him in person.

If it was my job to work at baseball prospectus, there's no way I don't view every one of the Top-250 prospects in person, who play baseball East of the Mississippi river. And, if I did watch him and can't recognize the talent that makes up Yonder Alonso, I'd get out of the business forever, because I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.

Yonder Alonso=Jack Clark

Alonso was, is and will always be an RBI-Machine. At the end of every season, there's only one thing I'll be interested in from Alonso, and that's how many RBI's did he get. The answer will always be "an inordinately high number compared to the number of opportunities he had".

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 06:15 PM
The group at baseball prospectus that decided Alonso is not a Top-100 prospect has lost their minds.


No group think at BP. Its just Kevin Goldstein over at BP doing their rankings.

Scrap Irony
03-03-2010, 06:22 PM
The group at baseball prospectus that decided Alonso is not a Top-100 prospect has lost their minds.

They've just lost all credibility with me.

They obvioulsy didn't "watch" him last season, or they wouldn't rank him so ridiculously low. It's OK to be wrong about a couple of guys, but not a guy who "starred" in College, was drafted exactly where he should have been in the draft, and has done nothing to change his original projections other than have an injury that caused him to miss considerable time and approach his hitting slightly differently from normal.

It all doesn't matter, as a year from now he'll be playing in the Majors and making everyone who "thought" he had no power or couldn't hit look like fools for "guessing" on his abilities instead of taking a look at him in person.

If it was my job to work at baseball prospectus, there's no way I don't view every one of the Top-250 prospects in person, who play baseball East of the Mississippi river. And, if I did watch him and can't recognize the talent that makes up Yonder Alonso, I'd get out of the business forever, because I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.

Yonder Alonso=Jack Clark

Alonso was, is and will always be an RBI-Machine. At the end of every season, there's only one thing I'll be interested in from Alonso, and that's how many RBI's did he get. The answer will always be "an inordinately high number compared to the number of opportunities he had".

1. I'm pretty sure someone at BP has seen Alonso play multiple times. Goldstein likely has seen all of them live. If he hasn't, he's at least seen video. (If not, he has no business doing the rankings, I agree.)
2. It doesn't matter where someone is drafted; it matters how they produce and how scouts foresee them playing in the future.
3. So if a person sees him in person and they still don't view him as a top prospect, they're simply wrong because his skills are that apparent? Hyperbole.
4. Not only that, if someone disagrees with you, they're so wrong they should get out of the sport? Ridiculous.
5. Yonder Alonso= Jack Clark? Supposedly, Alonso's best tool is his ability to hit for average. Clark struggled to hit for average for most of his career. The comparison is flawed.
6. RBI is a team-dependent stat that has little bearing on the talent of a prospect. Your assertion that he is an RBI machine is, at best, a minor point, and, most likely, a nonstarter for every serious prospect guru in the business.

Benihana
03-03-2010, 06:26 PM
Smoak after his injury fell apart in AAA (sounds just like Alonso, but one level lower). Smoak may switch hit, but he can't hit lefties (at least not if you think Alonso can't hit lefties - peripherals and numbers are almost exactly the same vs lefties). Smoak plays better defense, but its a small amount better. Pre draft reports on Smoak having plus defense were far exaggerated and still hang around some for some reason. Is Smoak a better prospect? I can buy the argument that he is, though I think if he is its by a small amount. The comparison is that we have two guys with extremely similar skills who beat up a league in the first half, got injured and then didn't perform as well after the injury in the second half who both play the same position and have not proven they can hit lefties (though I believe both will be able to in time). One guy goes from a .950 OPS ceiling (KG said this last year on Alonso) to a guy at least 58 spots behind another first baseman who was compared to Lyle Overbay (Brett Wallace), while Justin Smoak stays a Top 20 prospect.

Once again ignoring the fact that Smoak is at least one full level ahead, and has performed drastically better when compared at the same (AA and AFL) levels. No mention in there whatsoever.

The amount of delusion that abounds is astounding.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 06:37 PM
Once again ignoring the fact that Smoak is at least one full level ahead, and has performed drastically better when compared at the same (AA and AFL) levels. No mention in there whatsoever.

The amount of delusion that abounds is astounding.

Smoak was a level ahead. Its an advantage. He also got owned in AAA too. Of course he was injured too. Its tough to compare the AA stats, as Alonso was injured while in AA, had a small sample size of 3 weeks and the drastic difference between the two leagues in terms of scoring environments. Still, what are the most ideal projections for each player? Does one guy truly separate himself from the other? I don't see it.

REDblooded
03-03-2010, 06:43 PM
Once again ignoring the fact that Smoak is at least one full level ahead, and has performed drastically better when compared at the same (AA and AFL) levels. No mention in there whatsoever.

The amount of delusion that abounds is astounding.

I think you're vastly overrating the actual level, and blindly stumbling past the differences in leagues...

Go read this thread ( http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80522 ), take a deep look at the comparisons, and reassess your argument... Simply looking at A+/AA/AAA is a hugely flawed baseline of reasoning.

Also, check out this eye-boggling list of PCL pitching greats from last season... So many top prospects dotting the list it's absurd...

http://pacificcoast.league.milb.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_pit&lid=112&sid=l112

/sarcasm

TheNext44
03-03-2010, 06:45 PM
Once again ignoring the fact that Smoak is at least one full level ahead, and has performed drastically better when compared at the same (AA and AFL) levels. No mention in there whatsoever.

The amount of delusion that abounds is astounding.

The fact that one guy is a level ahead doesn't mean much prospect wise. It just means that he is a year ahead of schedule. It's not like Alonso got owned in AA. If he continues on the same track, he should put up great numbers in AAA, just like Smoak did in AA last year.

I think Doug's point is not who is the better prospect, but how can you look at what Alonso did, and look at what Smoak did, and consider Smoak a top 20 prospect and not even include Alonso? They are very similar, except one got injured and had to be held back a half a season.

TheNext44
03-03-2010, 06:47 PM
One question for the prospect experts:

Has there ever been a prospect that has been on nearly everyone else's top 50 list, that did not even make another's top 100 list? Just curious, and if so, would love to see who it was.

REDblooded
03-03-2010, 06:51 PM
The great thing is that these lists have absolutely ZERO bearing on how a player turns out... It's up to Alonso to put up and shut up the critics... Only downside is the possibility that other organizations buy into hype and it effects potential trade value...

klw
03-03-2010, 08:04 PM
Doug- It is clear that you feel that Alonso should be ranked on the list. Taking Alonso out of the equation, do you feel that Smoak is ranked too high? If so, where roughly would you slot him? Where would you rank Alonso at this point?

REDblooded
03-03-2010, 08:26 PM
If it was me, smoak would be somewhere in the 30's with Alonso landing somewhere in the 40's... I really don't see Brett Wallace being a better baseball player than either one, or probably Vitters for that matter... Smoak and Alonso definitely shouldn't be more than 10 spots apart though.

I just think it's absurd that the way Alonso started the season, consistently landing aboard BA's hot list, that he was punished so much for the hamate break...

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 09:02 PM
Doug- It is clear that you feel that Alonso should be ranked on the list. Taking Alonso out of the equation, do you feel that Smoak is ranked too high? If so, where roughly would you slot him? Where would you rank Alonso at this point?

I think Smoak is ranked correctly. I would also rank Alonso in the 15-20 range.

dougdirt
03-03-2010, 09:02 PM
I just think it's absurd that the way Alonso started the season, consistently landing aboard BA's hot list, that he was punished so much for the hamate break...

Not to mention that at midseason he was #15 on their list.

HokieRed
03-03-2010, 09:11 PM
To me this just indicates once again how utterly without value these lists are. Their only purpose, as I see it, is to give guys like us something to talk about in the offseason.

REDblooded
03-03-2010, 09:12 PM
To me this just indicates once again how utterly without value these lists are. Their only purpose, as I see it, is to give guys like us something to talk about in the offseason.

wrong... to make money for the sites that post them...

REDblooded
03-03-2010, 09:14 PM
1. Stephen Strasburg, RHP, Nationals
2. Jason Heyward, OF, Braves
3. Neftali Feliz, RHP, Rangers
4. Jesus Montero, C, Yankees
5. Mike Stanton, OF, Marlins
6. Pedro Alvarez, 3B, Pirates
7. Desmond Jennings, OF, Rays
8. Carlos Santana, C, Indians
9. Buster Posey, C, Giants
10. Aroldis Chapman, LHP, Reds
11. Chris Carter, 1B, Athletics
12. Dustin Ackley, OF/2B, Mariners
13. Jeremy Hellickson, RHP, Rays
14. Ryan Westmoreland, OF, Red Sox
15. Martin Perez, LHP, Rangers
16. Kyle Drabek, RHP, Blue Jays
17. Justin Smoak, 1B, Rangers
18. Brian Matusz, LHP, Orioles
19. Alcides Escobar, SS, Brewers
20. Michael Taylor, OF, Athletics
21. Madison Bumgarner, LHP, Giants
22. Christian Friedrich, LHP, Rockies
23. Tyler Matzek, LHP, Rockies
24. Domonic Brown, OF, Phillies
25. Jacob Turner, RHP, Tigers

When I look at the top 25, there's not a whole lot of guys I would move Alonso above... Really not sure Drabek belongs there though.

HokieRed
03-04-2010, 01:09 AM
wrong... to make money for the sites that post them...


True.

Kingspoint
03-04-2010, 08:31 AM
1. I'm pretty sure someone at BP has seen Alonso play multiple times. Goldstein likely has seen all of them live. If he hasn't, he's at least seen video. (If not, he has no business doing the rankings, I agree.)
2. It doesn't matter where someone is drafted; it matters how they produce and how scouts foresee them playing in the future.
3. So if a person sees him in person and they still don't view him as a top prospect, they're simply wrong because his skills are that apparent? Hyperbole.
4. Not only that, if someone disagrees with you, they're so wrong they should get out of the sport? Ridiculous.
5. Yonder Alonso= Jack Clark? Supposedly, Alonso's best tool is his ability to hit for average. Clark struggled to hit for average for most of his career. The comparison is flawed.
6. RBI is a team-dependent stat that has little bearing on the talent of a prospect. Your assertion that he is an RBI machine is, at best, a minor point, and, most likely, a nonstarter for every serious prospect guru in the business.

Jack Clark's best attributes were his ability to deliver RBI's at an improbable rate (as he had no one else on the team with any sort of power and was constantly walked), while being able to get on-base on a regular basis. He just wasn't given much to hit. It's hard to hit for average when they won't pitch to you. Alonso's best tool is his ability to knock guys in regardless of the situation, exactly like Jack Clark. Their careers will be 30 years apart, so the overall stats will be much different, but the similarities in being the "RBI-producer" on his team wherever he plays will be the same.

I addressed the "rbi is a team-dependent stat" in my original post. I said that they are "RBI-machines" because they'll knock in more per opportunity. And, it's not just "total RBI's", but it's when the RBI's are being knocked in during a game. How often does the RBI tie the game or put the team ahead. This is the type of player Jack Clark was and Yonder Alonso is.

Your point #3 is correct. If you can't recognize Alonzo's skills after having watched him play in person, you should get out of the business of giving analyses on players. Because you're definitely lacking the skills to do so properly.

Your point #2 is correct. Of course it doesn't matter where someone is drafted to determine where they rank now, but I said that Alonzo's done nothing to lower his status of having been drafted where he was in his short time in the minors so far. Where he was drafted does carry weight (unless you were drafted by Al Davis), when the draft was so recent.

Again, though, it's all a moot point. One year from now, Goldstein will be eating his words about Alonso, and my point will have been made. If Goldstein has seen Alonso play, then he's just not very good at scouting. Alonso's abilities are very obvious.

The first time I saw Gordan Beckham play a 3-game series in College, he was one of the smallest players on the field, but he played like a Giant. I saw his "intangibles" and hoped right there that he would become a RED. But, I also knew that Jockety liked Left-handed Power and that he was going to make Alonso his first pick as the new G.M. He didn't know yet if he had Left-Handed Power in the new REDS as Votto and Bruce hadn't proved anything yet. The GAB was created for Left-handed Power. If there's any way at all to get Alonso and Votto on the field together Walt's going to figure out how to do it. Alonso is the perfect player to bat behind Votto.

I'm just tired of hearing people give Alonso a bad wrap because of mis-perceived flaws in his makeup that can only stem from some stats they're reading on a web-site.

I can't believe that anyone who sees Alsonso doesn't project him as an .800-.850 career OPS player who will usually be in the Top-10 in the Majors for producing RBI's per opportunity.

Yonder Alonso is the best clutch hitter I've seen in a REDS uniform since Ken Griffey Senior, except Alonso has more power.

camisadelgolf
03-04-2010, 10:01 AM
Kingspoint, I'm just curious--do you have any statistical to back up your points?

Scrap Irony
03-04-2010, 10:28 AM
Your point #3 is correct. If you can't recognize Alonzo's skills after having watched him play in person, you should get out of the business of giving analyses on players. Because you're definitely lacking the skills to do so properly.



State an opinion as fact enough and it becomes fact?

Weak, weak argument.

In fact, no argument at all.

Has it really come to this? he who shouts loudest and most insistently wins?

Sigh.

Kc61
03-04-2010, 11:14 AM
These prospects lists are totally subjective and they don't mean much.

Alonso simply has to perform well. He's been riddled with a late signing in 2008 and an injury in 2009. He hasn't had a full year to show his stuff. He needs to have a good year coming up.

The lists tend to favor guys who haven't yet had any adversity on the field. At some point, though, the adversity comes for almost all prospects. They then fall down the lists. Means nothing. They are young, can adjust, and come back.

So no reason to be upset here, the key is for Alonso to smash the ball in 2010. Then we can worry about his fielding position, his placement on lists, and all that.

Let's just hope Yonder has a big year on the field.

lollipopcurve
03-04-2010, 11:25 AM
These prospects lists are totally subjective and they don't mean much.

Alonso simply has to perform well. He's been riddled with a late signing in 2008 and an injury in 2009. He hasn't had a full year to show his stuff. He needs to have a good year coming up.

The lists tend to favor guys who haven't yet had any adversity on the field. At some point, though, the adversity comes for almost all prospects. They then fall down the lists. Means nothing. They are young, can adjust, and come back.

So no reason to be upset here, the key is for Alonso to smash the ball in 2010. Then we can worry about his fielding position, his placement on lists, and all that.

Let's just hope Yonder has a big year on the field.

Exactly right. In the rush to appear to know how good prospects will become, many mistakes are made.

Mario-Rijo
03-04-2010, 03:34 PM
FWIW I like Andres Galaragga as a major league comp for Alonso maybe a smidge better is how I see him realistically. What I mean by that is both big strapping guys, both 1st basemen, both have more of a doubles stroke. But frankly there is probably a more astute comparison than even Andres in terms of real production just seem similiar in the power numbers (HR's, Dbls) and how advanced an intelligent hitter Andres became. I see Yonder having a different career arc though, something like the following.

Up to age 27/28 - .280/.360/.480
Age 27/28 - 32/33 - .290/.380/.520
Age 32/33 on - .270/.350/.450

krm1580
03-04-2010, 05:23 PM
I am confused as to why anyone gets cranked up over these ratings. They are wrong as often as they are right. Look at the consensus Top 10 from 10 years ago. Anybody plan on going to the Hall of Fame induction for any of these guys. (Besides Corey P. I know we will all attend that ;) )

1. Rick Ankiel, lhp, Cardinals
2. Pat Burrell, 1b/of, Phillies
3. Corey Patterson, of, Cubs
4. Vernon Wells, of, Blue Jays
5. Nick Johnson, 1b, Yankees
6. Ruben Mateo, of, Rangers
7. Sean Burroughs, 3b, Padres
8. Rafael Furcal, ss, Braves
9. Ryan Anderson, lhp, Mariners
10. John Patterson, rhp, Diamondbacks

As far as Alonso goes, I would love to see him actually get 400+ At bats in a season to find out what he is. I have seen him play twice and his swing looks nice but nothing about him really jumped out at me. Granted it was after his injury, but I am really curious if his numbers are due to injuries/park effects or that is what he really is. I guess we shall see.

REDblooded
03-04-2010, 05:34 PM
I am confused as to why anyone gets cranked up over these ratings. They are wrong as often as they are right. Look at the consensus Top 10 from 10 years ago. Anybody plan on going to the Hall of Fame induction for any of these guys. (Besides Corey P. I know we will all attend that ;) )

1. Rick Ankiel, lhp, Cardinals
2. Pat Burrell, 1b/of, Phillies
3. Corey Patterson, of, Cubs
4. Vernon Wells, of, Blue Jays
5. Nick Johnson, 1b, Yankees
6. Ruben Mateo, of, Rangers
7. Sean Burroughs, 3b, Padres
8. Rafael Furcal, ss, Braves
9. Ryan Anderson, lhp, Mariners
10. John Patterson, rhp, Diamondbacks

As far as Alonso goes, I would love to see him actually get 400+ At bats in a season to find out what he is. I have seen him play twice and his swing looks nice but nothing about him really jumped out at me. Granted it was after his injury, but I am really curious if his numbers are due to injuries/park effects or that is what he really is. I guess we shall see.

Albert Pujols highest ranking by Baseball America was 41...

dougdirt
03-04-2010, 05:44 PM
Albert Pujols highest ranking by Baseball America was 41...

Of course he only spent 1 full season in the minor leagues and it was in the lower levels (except a one week call up to AAA as a fill in - he actually only spent about a month outside of low A)

REDblooded
03-05-2010, 01:54 AM
Of course he only spent 1 full season in the minor leagues and it was in the lower levels (except a one week call up to AAA as a fill in - he actually only spent about a month outside of low A)

Didn't stop them from rating guys like Strasburg in their top 2.... Just a point to be made that in the end, prospect rankings really don't mean a whole lot, outside of selling advertisement space and subscriptions... and giving us all something to talk about...

dougdirt
03-05-2010, 02:13 AM
Didn't stop them from rating guys like Strasburg in their top 2.... Just a point to be made that in the end, prospect rankings really don't mean a whole lot, outside of selling advertisement space and subscriptions... and giving us all something to talk about...

Well to be fair, Strasburg has everything you want in a pitcher (other than clean mechanics, though some will tell you he has them). Pujols had a bad body and poor defense. He also saw drops in his performance when he was promoted, albeit a short time period of the last month of the season. Strasburg is also viewed as more 'ready' now than Pujols was in 2000. Of course that is likely to be incorrect as in 2001 Pujols killed the ball in the majors and Strasburg would have to probably throw 175 innings of about 3.50 ERA baseball to match what Pujols did that season.

The number next to the names is more about giving something to talk about. The information that generally comes after the players name is generally more important.

Kingspoint
03-05-2010, 08:21 AM
Anyone see the Double that Alonso hit off of Chapman on Thursday?

Guess he can't hit left-handers, though.

Kingspoint
03-05-2010, 08:32 AM
Kingspoint, I'm just curious--do you have any statistical to back up your points?

Dougdirt's provided an intense amount of support, but I guess I'd really like to drop it for now and just wait and see what happens with him this year. We'll all know soon enough. I'm not going to say, "I told you so" or anything to anyone about it. REDSZONE's the most intelligent forum I've ever seen, by far (though I don't check out very many). The consensus here is usually correct (except of course when evaluating our own players, as the tendency to over-value them is consistent, especially when we like them a lot as people, but that's pretty normal).

The consensus here is that Alonso is going to be a "solid" hitter in the Majors for many years, at the very least. And a guy like that should be in the Top-100 prospects.

The biggest difference in opinions I've had around here is that most people liked the Scott Rolen for Zach Stewart trade. It was pretty overwhelmingly in favor of the trade. That the consensus here is usually correct, it's looks like I'll be wrong about that one. I just hope no one tries to use the "he's brought a veteran presence to the club argument" as proof, if the REDS turn out to win 90 games this year.

I trust my eyes, by the way, more than I trust any stat. When I watch Alonso bat, he makes me go, "Wow!".

As several of the last posts have said, we all need to see him play a full season.

redsfandan
03-05-2010, 09:36 AM
One question for the prospect experts:

Has there ever been a prospect that has been on nearly everyone else's top 50 list, that did not even make another's top 100 list? Just curious, and if so, would love to see who it was.
I like that question. When was the last time a prospect was in the same position as Alonso? A top prospect whose stock falls but is still ranked on every ranking except one.

I can understand that Goldstein likes Smoak more and I can understand if Alonso slips in a ranking. But to slip completely off the ranking (of 101 prospects) altogether?? Maybe they should start doing drug testing of baseball evaluators cuz I think Goldstein might have some really good stuff.

redsfandan
03-05-2010, 09:39 AM
The biggest difference in opinions I've had around here is that most people liked the Scott Rolen for Zach Stewart trade. It was pretty overwhelmingly in favor of the trade. That the consensus here is usually correct, it's looks like I'll be wrong about that one. I just hope no one tries to use the "he's brought a veteran presence to the club argument" as proof, if the REDS turn out to win 90 games this year.
I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

Scrap Irony
03-05-2010, 09:46 AM
I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

That's my perception of it as well. The lunatic fringe insisted Rolen was worthless, while Stewart was a shoo-in as a perennial All-Star, but I think cooler heads have come back to earth on those subjects. (Though I don't read SunDeck all that often, and Rolen's most strident critics were located in that sub-forum.)

TRF
03-05-2010, 01:59 PM
I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

I was against that particular upgrade, as I thought Frazier could handle the job starting this year. It might have been rough for a season, but I'd have signed a 3B, maybe FeLo for offense or if I wanted to have someone mentor Frazier, find a glove for 3B to back him up.

Can you imagine a AAA rotation of Wood, Chapman, Leake, Stewart and Klinker? Leake probaly starts at AA, but he'd reach AAA soon enough.

dougdirt
03-05-2010, 02:03 PM
Can you imagine a AAA rotation of Wood, Chapman, Leake, Stewart and Klinker? Leake probaly starts at AA, but he'd reach AAA soon enough.

I am hoping for something just like that (sans Stewart of course). Going to make for an expensive travel budget to Louisville this season.

REDblooded
03-05-2010, 03:21 PM
I am hoping for something just like that (sans Stewart of course). Going to make for an expensive travel budget to Louisville this season.

I'll just make sure I catch a series or two here in Indianapolis... Will be nice to see them going against Pedro Alvarez...

Kingspoint
03-05-2010, 03:48 PM
I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

I didn't want to get into the specifics, but yes.

No one ever argued against the upgrade at 3rd. It was always about the price that was paid to make the upgrade, whether or not you liked the trade.

Wasn't it 17% against the trade versus 83% for the trade?

Kingspoint
03-05-2010, 03:49 PM
(Though I don't read SunDeck all that often, and Rolen's most strident critics were located in that sub-forum.)

Let's not put our noses in the air now. ;)

Scrap Irony
03-05-2010, 04:59 PM
Sub-forum, as in not the main forum of RedsZone. Sun Deck, Game Threads, The Tavern, and The Minors, et al., are all sub-forums of the ORG.

Kingspoint
03-05-2010, 05:24 PM
Sub-forum, as in not the main forum of RedsZone. Sun Deck, Game Threads, The Tavern, and The Minors, et al., are all sub-forums of the ORG.

Sorry. I'll remove that chip off my shoulder now.

redsfandan
03-06-2010, 06:25 AM
I didn't want to get into the specifics, but yes.

No one ever argued against the upgrade at 3rd. It was always about the price that was paid to make the upgrade, whether or not you liked the trade.

Wasn't it 17% against the trade versus 83% for the trade?
Beats me. I don't remember if there was an actual poll although there probably was one. Hopefully the trade works out and Rolen can stay healthy.

Kingspoint
03-06-2010, 10:54 AM
Beats me. I don't remember if there was an actual poll although there probably was one. Hopefully the trade works out and Rolen can stay healthy.

Yes.

Here's to 2010: :beerme:

Patrick Bateman
03-06-2010, 07:51 PM
It should be clear to everyone that Kingspoint is allergic to facts since he has shown at no point any willingness to do anything beyond delivering opinions in an aggressive manner.

For the record, Jack Clark was a very good hitter, one whom was marginally better with men on base and runners in scoring position (like a 20 point swing in OPS, which isn't particularly abnormal considering that generally pitchers who are letting lots of guys on aren't pitching that great in the first place and have to pitch differently in these situations).

In the end, the assertion that Clark boasted some sort of magical skill as an RBI machine is obviously bad fiction, much like Dean Kootz. The further notion that he has been able to pass this gene down to Yonder Alonso also makes no sense in terms of science and genetics as they are not related, but also unsupported by anything more than Kingspoint's obersvations, which as far as I know isn't even kept track of on Fangraphs. In the end, the answer to how many RBI's Alonso will be getting is unlikely going to be an "inordinate amount compared to the amount of opportunities" as that obviously doesn't make sense.

Kingspoint
03-07-2010, 02:18 AM
It should be clear to everyone that Kingspoint is allergic to facts since he has shown at no point any willingness to do anything beyond delivering opinions in an aggressive manner.

For the record, Jack Clark was a very good hitter, one whom was marginally better with men on base and runners in scoring position (like a 20 point swing in OPS, which isn't particularly abnormal considering that generally pitchers who are letting lots of guys on aren't pitching that great in the first place and have to pitch differently in these situations).

In the end, the assertion that Clark boasted some sort of magical skill as an RBI machine is obviously bad fiction, much like Dean Kootz. The further notion that he has been able to pass this gene down to Yonder Alonso also makes no sense in terms of science and genetics as they are not related, but also unsupported by anything more than Kingspoint's obersvations, which as far as I know isn't even kept track of on Fangraphs. In the end, the answer to how many RBI's Alonso will be getting is unlikely going to be an "inordinate amount compared to the amount of opportunities" as that obviously doesn't make sense.

Facts are often misleading. Thus, there was no reason to try to use them. I never even bothered to look it up, as it didn't matter. I know what I saw over Jack Clark's career. I don't need any stats to verify it or dispute it, even if it was possible to do it. I suppose one could look up what his stats were when he had an at-bat when he represented the tying or go-ahead run, or there was a man on base who represented the tying or go-ahead run. And then compare that to all of the other times he was at bat. But, I don't want to take 25 hours to figure that out.

It is an opinion, but my opinion is a good one on this. I try to only comment on players that I know "extremely" well. Jack Clark "delivered"....a lot more often than Tony Perez ever did in the clutch (compared to the players that Perez had around him Offensively) and he was known as Mr. Clutch. Jack Clark had abysmal Offensive players around him, yet he delivered time and time again when it mattered....when it tied the game or put his team ahead. That's the truest definition of what I'm talking about. Yonder Alonso is the EXACT same type of player.

You can have your opinion. I just know that mine is 100% correct on this matter. There's not a chance in Hades that I'm wrong about this.

I will walk from St. Louis to Cincinnati if I'm wrong about this.

Patrick Bateman
03-07-2010, 01:51 PM
Facts are often misleading. Thus, there was no reason to try to use them. I never even bothered to look it up, as it didn't matter. I know what I saw over Jack Clark's career. I don't need any stats to verify it or dispute it, even if it was possible to do it. I suppose one could look up what his stats were when he had an at-bat when he represented the tying or go-ahead run, or there was a man on base who represented the tying or go-ahead run. And then compare that to all of the other times he was at bat. But, I don't want to take 25 hours to figure that out.

It is an opinion, but my opinion is a good one on this. I try to only comment on players that I know "extremely" well. Jack Clark "delivered"....a lot more often than Tony Perez ever did in the clutch (compared to the players that Perez had around him Offensively) and he was known as Mr. Clutch. Jack Clark had abysmal Offensive players around him, yet he delivered time and time again when it mattered....when it tied the game or put his team ahead. That's the truest definition of what I'm talking about. Yonder Alonso is the EXACT same type of player.

You can have your opinion. I just know that mine is 100% correct on this matter. There's not a chance in Hades that I'm wrong about this.

I will walk from St. Louis to Cincinnati if I'm wrong about this.

This is one of the weakest responses I've probably encountered in my life. I don't mean just on Redszone or anything, I mean in every conversation I have ever had in person, on the phone, or via the internet. I honestly don't know how you could be reading and following Redszone so consistently over the last few years and still believe that this type of post could advance any discussion. The basic thesis of this post says that you:

a) have no interest in learning
b) have no interest in considering facts
c) have no interest in anyone else's opinions

I find it incredulous that you even bother posting on Redszone when you believe in the above criteria.

FACTS are not misleading. They can't be misleading. They are nothing more than a true representation of something that has already happened. Based on that meaning, it is actually not possible for them to be misleading as they are built on the foundation of honesty. The people who use facts may be misleading... as in using them incorrectly or without proper context.

But in this particular topic of how good a hitter Jack Clark is in "RBI situations," one would think that it wouldn't be particularly misleading to check stats on you know, how Jack Clark has faired in situations with people on base and/or in scoring position.

The facts on that say that he is marginally better compared to his career in other situations which isn't abnormal considering how players in general are a little bit better in those situations because of the circumstance of the situation.

Your perceptions are simply not enough to prove your point or advance this discussion, as honestly your perceptions have no worth to me. You have not gained any type of ethos in your past postings to suggest that you could say factless things like this and turn out right, nor have you provided your opinion in a constructive way, and lastly, in regards to Alonso, this argument just doesn't make sense. I get the sense that your posts are meant to be a joke, or that you are punking me or something. THAT seems more appropriate for the situation.

RedsManRick
03-07-2010, 01:58 PM
I will walk from St. Louis to Cincinnati if I'm wrong about this.

Given that your entire post suggests that you don't believe in objective truth, only subjective, I find it hard to believe you could ever admit to being wrong about it regardless of whatever evidence was presented to refute your assertion.

As for facts, they surely can be misinterpreted or used improperly to arrive at an incorrect conclusion, but there are verifiable facts. And if you start to put some definitions around your assertions before playing out the argument to its conclusion (e.g. what defines a clutch opportunity? what is coming through? etc), you could get to a place where even you would feel comfortable about what the data says. But to get to that point, you have to be willing to accept that personal observation is an inherently biased, unverifiable experience and, while useful in certain cases, usually not a reliable way to make comparisons of long term events with many, many individual observations.

kpresidente
03-07-2010, 04:58 PM
Good God, who cares? Nobody comes here for a class in epistemology. Kingsport compared Alonso to Jack Clark. You gusy don't like that. Great! All this could be accomplished in like, 2 lines.

Patrick Bateman
03-07-2010, 05:01 PM
Good God, who cares? Nobody comes here for a class in epistemology. Kingsport compared Alonso to Jack Clark. You gusy don't like that. Great! All this could be accomplished in like, 2 lines.

....And cerebral failure.

AtomicDumpling
03-07-2010, 08:24 PM
Facts are often misleading. Thus, there was no reason to try to use them. I never even bothered to look it up, as it didn't matter. I know what I saw over Jack Clark's career. I don't need any stats to verify it or dispute it, even if it was possible to do it. I suppose one could look up what his stats were when he had an at-bat when he represented the tying or go-ahead run, or there was a man on base who represented the tying or go-ahead run. And then compare that to all of the other times he was at bat. But, I don't want to take 25 hours to figure that out.

It is an opinion, but my opinion is a good one on this. I try to only comment on players that I know "extremely" well. Jack Clark "delivered"....a lot more often than Tony Perez ever did in the clutch (compared to the players that Perez had around him Offensively) and he was known as Mr. Clutch. Jack Clark had abysmal Offensive players around him, yet he delivered time and time again when it mattered....when it tied the game or put his team ahead. That's the truest definition of what I'm talking about. Yonder Alonso is the EXACT same type of player.

You can have your opinion. I just know that mine is 100% correct on this matter. There's not a chance in Hades that I'm wrong about this.

I will walk from St. Louis to Cincinnati if I'm wrong about this.

"Oh, I'm exhausted. I've been on this street a thousand times. It's never looked so strange. The faces...so cold. In the distance a child is crying...fatherless...a bastard child, perhaps. My back aches, my heart aches, but my feet...my feet are resilient! Thank God I took off my boots and put on my Himalayan walking shoes!"