PDA

View Full Version : John Sickels' Rankings



Scrap Irony
01-12-2013, 06:37 PM
From his website:


I have 41 players on the Reds list. The results so far:

One Grade A-
Three Grade B+
One Grade B
Three Grade B-
Four Grade C+
20 Grade C
Nine Ungrade

My guesses:

A-
Hamilton

B+
Stephenson
Cingrani
Corcino

B
Winker

B-
Hoover
Guillon
Travieso

C+
H. Rodriguez
Reynoso
Langfield
Soto

Completely off the top of my head.
His list comes out on Monday, so let's get lists out. Winner earns praise and respect. Or at least a grudging admiration.

dougdirt
01-12-2013, 06:42 PM
I think the list may be coming out later tonight. When he said he will finalize all grades, I believe he means revisiting some grades for guys he wasn't completely sure on (he mentioned that earlier this week).

Steve4192
01-12-2013, 07:54 PM
You guesses for the top five sounds about right.

Beyond them, the Reds system really doesn't have much. Promotions and trades have really gutted the depth of the Reds system over the last year. All those guys rated below B are either low ceiling / high floor bench fodder or high ceiling / no floor lottery tickets.

dougdirt
01-12-2013, 08:07 PM
I like the amount of lottery tickets though. We used to hardly have any (after almost only having them in the Jimbo era). I think the system is a little stronger than some may give it credit for. There is a decent drop off after the Top 6 guys, but the next group is pretty darn deep. Baseball America ranked Reynoso in their Top 10 with a scouting report incredibly similar to the one I had written on him and I had him ranked 25th AFTER trading Didi Gregorius.

4 Top 100 (probably Top 75) prospects, and a lot of depth is something that you can really work with, especially when that depth comes along with several lottery ticket types.

Scrap Irony
01-12-2013, 08:11 PM
You guesses for the top five sounds about right.

Beyond them, the Reds system really doesn't have much. Promotions and trades have really gutted the depth of the Reds system over the last year. All those guys rated below B are either low ceiling / high floor bench fodder or high ceiling / no floor lottery tickets.

Not really. There are C prospects in Sickels' rankings that end up quite serviceable. Especially lower level guys.

They've got guys like Chad Rogers, Bryson Smith, and Steve Selsky, for example, who've really outshone their draft position, but have questions because of that same draft position.

They've got guys like Yorman Rodriguez and Neftali Soto who've had very good seasons and high prospect rankings in the past, but struggled last season.

They've got guys like Kyle Lotzkar and Henry Rodriguez, who battled injuries and should be much improved this season (if healthy).

Then they've got wildcards like Tanner Rahier, Seth Mejias-Brean, Gelalich, Reynoso, and other young guys from Dayton and lower.

I love that they have so many C level guys. In fact, one of my favorites-- Juan Perez-- isn't even being analyzed by Sickels.

Steve4192
01-12-2013, 08:20 PM
Not really. There are C prospects in Sickels' rankings that end up quite serviceable. Especially lower level guys.

Those are the lottery tickets. It's great when a C prospect pans out, and it does happen on occasion, but the vast majority of them never amount to a hill of beans. Everyone remembers the handful of lottery tickets that pan out and forgets the bushel baskets full of lottery tickets that wash out.

Steve4192
01-12-2013, 08:25 PM
I like the amount of lottery tickets though. We used to hardly have any (after almost only having them in the Jimbo era).

I agree that quantity can produce quality in and of itself. If the Reds have ten lottery tickets and 80% of them wash out, that still means they get two quality major leaguers out of the deal. The real trick though is to trade some of that 80% while they are still considered prospects.If you can develop two legit major leaguers and flip some of the chaff for another one, you are ahead of the game.

mth123
01-13-2013, 08:23 AM
Looks like only 2 B- guys in the final ranking.

Hamilton A-, Stephenson, Cingrani and Corcino B+, Winker B, Travieso and Hoover B-. He had Lotzkar at 8 with a C+ with everybody down to 17 at C+. Y-Rod was 18 with a C.

Superdude
01-13-2013, 08:30 AM
Looks like only 2 B- guys in the final ranking.

Hamilton A-, Stephenson, Cingrani and Corcino B+, Winker B, Travieso and Hoover B-. He had Lotzkar at 8 with a C+ with everybody down to 17 at C+. Y-Rod was 18 with a C.

Apparently Stephenson and Travieso are both potential number 2's? I hate when people factor likelihood into potential.

Benihana
01-13-2013, 08:53 AM
Looks like only 2 B- guys in the final ranking.

Hamilton A-, Stephenson, Cingrani and Corcino B+, Winker B, Travieso and Hoover B-. He had Lotzkar at 8 with a C+ with everybody down to 17 at C+. Y-Rod was 18 with a C.

That is consistent with how I had them (although I don't include Hoover in my rankings). I put Guillon ahead of Lotzkar at this point- but after Winker and maybe Travieso, you could put the next 10 guys in almost any order and it wouldn't matter.

I really like Sickels as he seems to usually be the most consistent with my own thinking.

That said, I think everyone recognizes that there is the top 6 and then everybody else. Of course there is some separation within the top 6 as well.

Steve4192
01-13-2013, 12:08 PM
Apparently Stephenson and Travieso are both potential number 2's? I hate when people factor likelihood into potential.

I always enjoy when prospect hounds try to pigeonhole a guy as a #1, #2, etc. The reality is, if a guy is good enough to profile as a #2, he's good enough to become a #1 if his development goes well. Look no further than Johnny Cueto, who most prospect hounds had as a MOR starter at best, power reliever at worst. Johnny just kept going out there and proving them wrong.

Steve4192
01-13-2013, 12:14 PM
That said, I think everyone recognizes that there is the top 6 and then everybody else. Of course there is some separation within the top 6 as well.

I think of it more as the top four then everybody else, with Winker being the clear #1 among 'everybody else' and Travieso as the best of the rest. I just don't think Winker/Travieso compare with the huge upside of Stephenson or the body of work of the three guys on the brink of the majors.

dougdirt
01-13-2013, 12:15 PM
I always enjoy when prospect hounds try to pigeonhole a guy as a #1, #2, etc. The reality is, if a guy is good enough to profile as a #2, he's good enough to become a #1 if his development goes well. Look no further than Johnny Cueto, who most prospect hounds had as a MOR starter at best, power reliever at worst. Johnny just kept going out there and proving them wrong.

I get where you are coming from, but what gets me even more is the whole "scout speak" of what a #1 or #2 even is. Oh, there are only 10-15 #1's in baseball. Really? This isn't 1954 anymore guys, there are 30 teams, therefore in an even distribution of talent, there are 30 guys qualified to be a #1. Likewise with a #2, 3, 4 and 5. Yes, Justin Verlander is likely to be significantly better than the 30th best pitcher. So what? Joey Votto is a whole lot better than most other #3 hitters in the game, but you don't have to be Joey Votto good to be a #3 hitter or there would only be 2 or 3 of them.

dougdirt
01-13-2013, 12:19 PM
I think of it more as the top four then everybody else, with Winker being the clear #1 among 'everybody else' and Travieso as the best of the rest. I just don't think Winker/Travieso compare with the huge upside of Stephenson or the body of work of the three guys on the brink of the majors.

I think there is a top 3, gap, next three, then a big gap, then a group of about 25-30 guys who can probably all be rather close to each other depending on how you want to look at things.

Hamilton, Stephenson, Corcino.
Travieso, Winker, Cingrani.





Everyone else.

Superdude
01-13-2013, 01:03 PM
I always enjoy when prospect hounds try to pigeonhole a guy as a #1, #2, etc. The reality is, if a guy is good enough to profile as a #2, he's good enough to become a #1 if his development goes well. Look no further than Johnny Cueto, who most prospect hounds had as a MOR starter at best, power reliever at worst. Johnny just kept going out there and proving them wrong.

Seems extra silly in Stephenson's case. I can see where Cueto may not have looked like an ace coming up, but Stephenson has an arm that rivals just about anyone in the game today. He obviously 'could' be an ace, and I'd say the same for Travieso at this point.

Steve4192
01-13-2013, 01:25 PM
I get where you are coming from, but what gets me even more is the whole "scout speak" of what a #1 or #2 even is. Oh, there are only 10-15 #1's in baseball. Really? This isn't 1954 anymore guys, there are 30 teams, therefore in an even distribution of talent, there are 30 guys qualified to be a #1.

I think they are using the term '#1 starter' to mean 'potential ace', of which there are WAY fewer than 30 in the league at any given time.

dougdirt
01-13-2013, 02:01 PM
I think they are using the term '#1 starter' to mean 'potential ace', of which there are WAY fewer than 30 in the league at any given time.

Well they need to stop. Because they then turn around and say #2, but if you add the actual amount of #1 and #2 pitchers in baseball according to most scouts, it is still less than 30. That is unpossible.

kaldaniels
01-13-2013, 02:09 PM
I get where you are coming from, but what gets me even more is the whole "scout speak" of what a #1 or #2 even is. Oh, there are only 10-15 #1's in baseball. Really? This isn't 1954 anymore guys, there are 30 teams, therefore in an even distribution of talent, there are 30 guys qualified to be a #1. Likewise with a #2, 3, 4 and 5. Yes, Justin Verlander is likely to be significantly better than the 30th best pitcher. So what? Joey Votto is a whole lot better than most other #3 hitters in the game, but you don't have to be Joey Votto good to be a #3 hitter or there would only be 2 or 3 of them.

Totally agree, I'd love to see someone attempt a year end summary rating the top 150 pitchers as a 1-5.

Benihana
01-13-2013, 02:09 PM
I think of it more as the top four then everybody else, with Winker being the clear #1 among 'everybody else' and Travieso as the best of the rest. I just don't think Winker/Travieso compare with the huge upside of Stephenson or the body of work of the three guys on the brink of the majors.

Like I said, there are gaps within the top 6. To be fair, one could argue Top 4, next 2 (like you did). Or Top 2, next 2, then next 2 (like I would). Or top 3, then next 3 (like Doug did). Point is, very few people dispute the names of the top 6 guys. There are certainly gaps within those top 6, but in terms of interchangeable parts, everyone after the first 6 really is interchangeable at this point.

At the end of the day, it's just semantics, and everyone has a different opinion. If you're telling a casual follower of this stuff that there are six names they need to know, I don't think many people would dispute that.

M2
01-16-2013, 12:37 PM
A few thoughts on what we're seeing from the rankings (these and BA):

1) Cingrani clearly pole vaulted Corcino this season. That can change, but Cingrani made the sale that his fastball/change combo is a serious arsenal.

2) Winker's bat is almost universally adored. He's got serious helium potential.

3) Billy Hamilton's practically a new species for the scouting community. He's like some new breed of supercheetah and they're trying to figure out exactly what kind of hunting he can do.

4) Travieso is getting the perfunctory grades that go with his draft position, but no one's saying anything complimentary about him. He's got lead balloon potential if he struggles in 2013.

Scrap Irony
01-16-2013, 02:24 PM
You know, I agree completely with you, M2.

Nice analysis.

dougdirt
01-16-2013, 06:37 PM
I keep hearing people say that about Travieso, but honestly, I just don't see it.

A kid throws 90-93 and touches 96 MPH while working on his mechanics at age 18 with a real nice slider and people are worried about reports on him? Tough critics I guess....

RedsManRick
01-16-2013, 06:54 PM
Interesting that LaMarre didn't make even honorable mention.

Superdude
01-16-2013, 08:04 PM
I keep hearing people say that about Travieso, but honestly, I just don't see it.

A kid throws 90-93 and touches 96 MPH while working on his mechanics at age 18 with a real nice slider and people are worried about reports on him? Tough critics I guess....

I was wondering about your thoughts on this. The scrutiny he's getting just seems ridiculous for a kid that's thrown 20 innings of rookie leagues.

Steve4192
01-16-2013, 08:14 PM
I keep hearing people say that about Travieso, but honestly, I just don't see it.

A kid throws 90-93 and touches 96 MPH while working on his mechanics at age 18 with a real nice slider and people are worried about reports on him? Tough critics I guess....

I think it has more to do with the fact that most draft ranking websites pegged him as a 'reach' on draft day, so they are looking to confirm their earlier assessment.

dougdirt
01-16-2013, 09:31 PM
I think it has more to do with the fact that most draft ranking websites pegged him as a 'reach' on draft day, so they are looking to confirm their earlier assessment.

That along with that before this year, no one thought he could start because his dad wouldn't let him. I think that a lot of the "future closer" stuff comes from that too.

I mean let's all be honest here. High school pitcher comes into professional baseball throwing 90-93 and touching 96 with room to grow (we know that because he has thrown harder) and a very strong breaking ball. That sounds like almost every high school first rounder you can think of. Hardly ever do the truly big arms come in from high school with three pitches. They come in with a big fastball and breaking ball. You mean to tell me its a shock that a high school has a third pitch that lags behind his other two? Surely you jest.

I don't know, I just don't see the reason for concern. We know the kid throws hard. Let's even pretend he is the 90-93 guy who touches 96 and never gains another MPH. Well, that still sounds like a heck of a starting pitching prospect for an 18 year old doesn't it? Of course it does. There is absolutely no reason to doubt he can start any more than 99% of other high schoolers 6 months out of the draft. He has shown zero reason to believe he can't start at this point.

M2
01-16-2013, 11:43 PM
I think it has more to do with the fact that most draft ranking websites pegged him as a 'reach' on draft day, so they are looking to confirm their earlier assessment.

No doubt it's some of that. I suspect connected to it is scouts who thought he was a reach still haven't seen enough of him to convince them that he wasn't. BA and Sickels clearly aren't getting positive feedback concerning his breaking ball. Is that because it's not so great or because more scouts need to see more of it?

Either way, doesn't sound like Travieso has much of a bandwagon at the moment.

Superdude
01-17-2013, 12:03 AM
No doubt it's some of that. I suspect connected to it is scouts who thought he was a reach still haven't seen enough of him to convince them that he wasn't. BA and Sickels clearly aren't getting positive feedback concerning his breaking ball. Is that because it's not so great or because more scouts need to see more of it?

Either way, doesn't sound like Travieso has much of a bandwagon at the moment.

BA picked him apart, but Sickels wasn't all that critical really. He basically just said he was raw which is kind of expected.

dougdirt
01-17-2013, 12:06 AM
No doubt it's some of that. I suspect connected to it is scouts who thought he was a reach still haven't seen enough of him to convince them that he wasn't. BA and Sickels clearly aren't getting positive feedback concerning his breaking ball. Is that because it's not so great or because more scouts need to see more of it?

Either way, doesn't sound like Travieso has much of a bandwagon at the moment.

Have you read the BA scouting report from the AZL Top 20 (which calls his breaking ball potentially plus and also says his change up has good movement and some deception, but he needs to control it better)?

His report in the 2013 Reds list was rather brief. Basically though, it sounds like almost every other high schooler ever drafted. Good fastball velocity, inconsistent breaking ball, working on change up.

REDREAD
01-17-2013, 10:30 AM
In reading the article, it looks like Sickles ranks Traversio equal to Hoover, and he has glowing praise for Hoover. Both are B-. That seems to mean Traversio is getting respect.
It's almost as if this list has anyone a B- or higher as a good bet to make the majors.

What he says on Cingrani is exciting too. I think this is the first article that has acknowledged that maybe Cingrani is more than just a middle reliever.


3) Tony Cingrani, LHP, Grade B+: He was sure effective for a guy with a mediocre breaking ball, relying on fastball/changeup combination. Given the improvements he's made over the last three years, I think the breaking ball can become at least average, which would make him a number three starter, maybe more.

dougdirt
01-17-2013, 11:32 AM
In reading the article, it looks like Sickles ranks Traversio equal to Hoover, and he has glowing praise for Hoover. Both are B-. That seems to mean Traversio is getting respect.
It's almost as if this list has anyone a B- or higher as a good bet to make the majors.

What he says on Cingrani is exciting too. I think this is the first article that has acknowledged that maybe Cingrani is more than just a middle reliever.

Given where Cingrani has been ranked in the league and team rankings by BA, it is clear that hardly anyone thinks he is just a middle reliever.

M2
01-17-2013, 01:31 PM
Have you read the BA scouting report from the AZL Top 20 (which calls his breaking ball potentially plus and also says his change up has good movement and some deception, but he needs to control it better)?

His report in the 2013 Reds list was rather brief. Basically though, it sounds like almost every other high schooler ever drafted. Good fastball velocity, inconsistent breaking ball, working on change up.

Read it, potentially plus, potentially not. That means they're not sold on it. Every young pitcher is working on every pitch, but Travieso's slider (from all reports) is still a work in progress.

The problem Travieso has is that he does profile like almost every other high schooler, not like a special one. What these capsules are telling us is they don't see him as special quite yet. We'll see if he can be something like a Jose Fernandez or Robert Stephenson in a year and less like Joseph Ross or Kevin Matthews.

Plus, you're familiar enough with how BA and Sickels do their work. They talk to a ton of people before they release their rankings. They're reflecting some overall skepticism about Travieso. Sickels is grading Jose Berrios and Lucas Sims higher right now. Travieso is in a B- pile with some guys who have injury concerns (Ty Hensley, Zach Eflin), didn't get to debut in 2012 (Matt Smoral) and who have admitted placeholder grades (Shane Watson). All of those pitchers could sink like a stone if they don't deliver in 2013.

dougdirt
01-17-2013, 02:03 PM
Read it, potentially plus, potentially not. That means they're not sold on it. Every young pitcher is working on every pitch, but Travieso's slider (from all reports) is still a work in progress.

The problem Travieso has is that he does profile like almost every other high schooler, not like a special one. What these capsules are telling us is they don't see him as special quite yet. We'll see if he can be something like a Jose Fernandez or Robert Stephenson in a year and less like Joseph Ross or Kevin Matthews.

Plus, you're familiar enough with how BA and Sickels do their work. They talk to a ton of people before they release their rankings. They're reflecting some overall skepticism about Travieso. Sickels is grading Jose Berrios and Lucas Sims higher right now. Travieso is in a B- pile with some guys who have injury concerns (Ty Hensley, Zach Eflin), didn't get to debut in 2012 (Matt Smoral) and who have admitted placeholder grades (Shane Watson). All of those pitchers could sink like a stone if they don't deliver in 2013.

The amount of 18 year olds with a current PLUS breaking ball can be counted on one hand over the last 10 years. They simply don't exist. Every last one of them is still working on the consistency of the pitch.

Again, I just see this as you trying to read far too deep into this. Of course someone is skeptical of an 18 year old pitcher. The amount of 18 year old pitchers without question marks on them in the last 30 years are limited to Dwight Gooden, Felix Hernandez and who?

Sure, they aren't saying he is a Top 100 prospect right now. Maybe not a special pitcher right now. What is shocking about that? He was a late first round draft pick, not a Top 10 guy.

texasdave
01-17-2013, 03:53 PM
How would the people who follow these things more closely rank the farm systems of the teams in the N.L. Central?

Using a very quick and crude ratings' system, the Reds are holding up the division.

6 points for an A, 5 points for an A- and so on yields this result:


TEAM A A- B+ B B- C+ TOT PTS
STL 2 1 2 2 5 12 24 53
CHI 0 1 2 1 8 17 29 49
PIT 1 1 3 1 5 11 22 47
MIL 0 0 0 4 7 11 22 37
CIN 0 1 3 1 2 10 17 34


The TOT column is the number of prospects each team has, per John Sickels, that grade out at C+ or better. The PTS column is the value of all the C+ or better prospects using the allotment system above. The Reds come in last in both categories.

Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time? The Reds are a fairly young team at the major league level, so they have time to build the system back up.

M2
01-17-2013, 03:59 PM
The amount of 18 year olds with a current PLUS breaking ball can be counted on one hand over the last 10 years. They simply don't exist. Every last one of them is still working on the consistency of the pitch.

You're splitting hairs and you know it. No one expects a plus breaking pitch from a HS arm (and pre-schedule his TJ surgery now if he's got one). Yet Travieso's slider is, at least from what we're being told by neutral evaluators, farther away than many others. Steve noted there might be bias cooked into that. I agreed and added it might also reflect that not enough scouts have seen enough of Travieso. So I've been perfectly open to the notion that his slider at present might be better than he's getting credit for.


Again, I just see this as you trying to read far too deep into this. Of course someone is skeptical of an 18 year old pitcher. The amount of 18 year old pitchers without question marks on them in the last 30 years are limited to Dwight Gooden, Felix Hernandez and who?

Actually I was reading just about shallowly into it as humanly possible. They ranked him about where you'd expect given his draft position, but the writeups were mildly critical/skeptical. It's right there in plain black and white.


Sure, they aren't saying he is a Top 100 prospect right now. Maybe not a special pitcher right now. What is shocking about that? He was a late first round draft pick, not a Top 10 guy.

Nothing's shocking about that. Like I said he's in line with a number of other HS arms who could go either way from the 2012 draft, begging the question of why you're getting worked up over me noting some mild skepticism on the kid.

Listen, you need to pick an argumentative stance here. If it's "of course there's some skepticism," then we agree. If it's that scouts really love him and think he's got a really great breaking ball, then argue away even though I've yet to find anyone out in the ether who is also taking that stance (and feel free to point out if someone does).

Edd Roush
01-17-2013, 04:07 PM
How would the people who follow these things more closely rank the farm systems of the teams in the N.L. Central?

Using a very quick and crude ratings' system, the Reds are holding up the division.

6 points for an A, 5 points for an A- and so on yields this result:


TEAM A A- B+ B B- C+ TOT PTS
STL 2 1 2 2 5 12 24 53
CHI 0 1 2 1 8 17 29 49
PIT 1 1 3 1 5 11 22 47
MIL 0 0 0 4 7 11 22 37
CIN 0 1 3 1 2 10 17 34


The TOT column is the number of prospects each team has, per John Sickels, that grade out at C+ or better. The PTS column is the value of all the C+ or better prospects using the allotment system above. The Reds come in last in both categories.

Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time? The Reds are a fairly young team at the major league level, so they have time to build the system back up.

I would offer a much higher weight to at least the A and A- prospects than you do in your system. In your system, Billy Hamilton is worth less than 2 of Milwaukee's B prospects. I doubt the Reds would trade Billy for those two. Maybe a 10 8 6 4 2 1 system would be more appropriate. Or even a 12 9 6 4 2 1 system.

Either way, per Sickels (and probably many other evaluators), it appears that the Reds system isn't as loaded as the rest of the division outside of Milwaukee. The Reds have clearly cashed out their system to improve the big league team. Hopefully guys like Winker, Traveiso and Stephenson make major strides next year so the Reds can have more A and A- prospects once Billy graduates. There is also a strong chance that Corcino could be an A or A- prospect if he pitches well in Louisville and/or Pensacola and doesn't lose his eligibilty. Also, if the Reds sign a lefty reliever and the Cincy rotation stays healthy, Cingrani could be an A or A- prospect as well. There could be a few wildcards who make a big jump in 2013 too.

M2
01-17-2013, 04:08 PM
How would the people who follow these things more closely rank the farm systems of the teams in the N.L. Central?

Using a very quick and crude ratings' system, the Reds are holding up the division.

6 points for an A, 5 points for an A- and so on yields this result:


TEAM A A- B+ B B- C+ TOT PTS
STL 2 1 2 2 5 12 24 53
CHI 0 1 2 1 8 17 29 49
PIT 1 1 3 1 5 11 22 47
MIL 0 0 0 4 7 11 22 37
CIN 0 1 3 1 2 10 17 34


The TOT column is the number of prospects each team has, per John Sickels, that grade out at C+ or better. The PTS column is the value of all the C+ or better prospects using the allotment system above. The Reds come in last in both categories.

Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time? The Reds are a fairly young team at the major league level, so they have time to build the system back up.

I think the Reds have the most undefined system right now with a lot of potential for upward grade movement in the next year if various players deliver. I thought Sickels graded the Cubs pretty generously.

Also, a weighting system that puts a little more value on higher grades would push the Reds ahead of the Brewers. And somebody in Pittsburgh ought to be made to answer for why such a consistently horrible team doesn't have a better system.

texasdave
01-17-2013, 04:43 PM
I can see adjusting the point values for each grade and weighting it a little heavier towards the higher prospects.

Using the 12-9-6-4-2-1 point-value system yields this result:


TEAM A A- B+ B B- C+ TOT PTS
STL 24 9 12 8 10 12 24 75
PIT 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 64
CHI 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 58
CIN 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 45
MIL 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 41

Steve4192
01-17-2013, 04:46 PM
Does that necessarily follow that they have the worst N.L. Central farm system at this point in time?

It depends how define worst.

If you define it as the amount of talent currently residing in their minor league system, perhaps.

If you define it as their ability to draft/sign and develop major league talent from the ground up, the answer is absolutely not.

The ultimate goal of a minor league is to produce major leaguers, not to get high rankings from prospect hounds. The Reds have done a fantastic job over the last couple of years in utilizing their farm system to increase the talent of their major league ballclub (both through trades and promotions). When you graduate/trade a bunch of guys as the Reds have done recently, you are going to have a drop off in the system rankings. It is inevitable. Every good team goes through peaks and valleys with their minor leagues, because they are consistently raiding the minor league cupboard to improve their major league team. Nobody wants to have a minor league system that is always full of prospects, because that means none of them are making it to the majors.

texasdave
01-17-2013, 05:14 PM
It depends how define worst.

If you define it as the amount of talent currently residing in their minor league system, perhaps.

If you define it as their ability to draft/sign and develop major league talent from the ground up, the answer is absolutely not.

The ultimate goal of a minor league is to produce major leaguers, not to get high rankings from prospect hounds. The Reds have done a fantastic job over the last couple of years in utilizing their farm system to increase the talent of their major league ballclub (both through trades and promotions). When you graduate/trade a bunch of guys as the Reds have done recently, you are going to have a drop off in the system rankings. It is inevitable. Every good team goes through peaks and valleys with their minor leagues, because they are consistently raiding the minor league cupboard to improve their major league team. Nobody wants to have a minor league system that is always full of prospects, because that means none of them are making it to the majors.

I agree that there are different ways to measure the effectiveness of the farm system. I was just looking at Sickel's ratings as a snapshot. I could have worded things a little better.

dougdirt
01-17-2013, 07:25 PM
Listen, you need to pick an argumentative stance here. If it's "of course there's some skepticism," then we agree. If it's that scouts really love him and think he's got a really great breaking ball, then argue away even though I've yet to find anyone out in the ether who is also taking that stance (and feel free to point out if someone does).

My stance is that you are reading too far into things if you think his scouting reports are hinting at some sort of questions by scouts that they don't have about just about everyone else who has ever been a high school pitcher out of the draft.

texasdave
01-17-2013, 10:30 PM
This guy sounds like a scout. Not very complimentary about the Reds' AZL players.

http://thebaseballprospect.blogspot.com/2012/09/azl-top-20-prospects.html

http://thebaseballprospect.blogspot.com/2012/09/game-reports-padres-reds-instructs.html

He says he will talk in greater depth about the players he has seen out there if anyone is interested.


Have worked for 2 major league baseball teams and worked in baseball since 2007.

If you would like to discuss what I have seen in a player in greater depth, or wish to tell me I am a moron for seeing a player a certain way, feel free to contact me at:

timothyekay@gmail.com

M2
01-17-2013, 10:34 PM
My stance is that you are reading too far into things if you think his scouting reports are hinting at some sort of questions by scouts that they don't have about just about everyone else who has ever been a high school pitcher out of the draft.

No, I think I was pretty clear about this: they've got questions about Travieso. FWIW, they don't like him as much as they did Stephenson last year, but Stephenson is one of those small number of HS arms on whom some fairly serious expectations get placed. Travieso isn't one of those guys and he's going to have to convert some people - that was my point.

AtomicDumpling
01-17-2013, 11:00 PM
Regarding Travieso, I don't think the scouts are downgrading him because they don't like his stuff. They just haven't been able to grade him at all yet, because they have not gotten a good look at his stuff yet. It is hard to rank a guy too highly when you have not seen him pitch in real games where he was using his full repertoire. The few times that Travieso has pitched in public he was in instructional mode and was not in full competition mode. We won't know what we really have in Travieso until the games start this season. All we know is he has a big arm and has had very little experience and had hardly received any coaching until he reported to the Reds. The scouts don't dislike his stuff, they just haven't seen his true stuff yet, so they are not going to give him a high grade until they get a good look at him first.


Here is a scouting report and video of Travieso from just before he was drafted by the Reds: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1203876-nick-travieso-to-reds-video-highlights-scouting-report-and-analysis

Superdude
01-17-2013, 11:14 PM
It is hard to rank a guy too highly when you have not seen him pitch in real games where he was using his full repertoire. The few times that Travieso has pitched in public he was in instructional mode and was not in full competition mode. We won't know what we really have in Travieso until the games start this season.

Completely agree. There's just no point in evaluating what Travieso did last summer, and I was a little surprised to see BA even go down that road. It's like questioning Tiger Woods because he missed some greens on the driving range. Next year we'll see what we really have in the kid.

lollipopcurve
01-20-2013, 09:13 AM
This guy sounds like a scout. Not very complimentary about the Reds' AZL players.

http://thebaseballprospect.blogspot....prospects.html

http://thebaseballprospect.blogspot....instructs.html

He says he will talk in greater depth about the players he has seen out there if anyone is interested.

Great find. This is the best scouting I've seen on the AZL guys, by a lot. Thanks for posting.

Only thing I question is his saying Reynoso's speed is below average. Guy led the AZL in steals. I liked the report that Reynoso's swing is nice and compact. Good to see some positive on Pedro Diaz too.

Also interesting that he says Travieso reported to the AZL a bit out of shape. Whether that means he was overweight or his arm wasn't ready, I don't know. But BA has said he didn't show the overpowering heat that draft reports attributed to him.

All in all, I don't see how you can't have at least a smidgeon of concern about Travieso. He was something of an overdraft (not a huge concern, though, when a guy ranked in the 40s goes in the 20s), the explanation being that he had shown high 90s velocity. The concern creeps in when his calling card is not in evidence after the draft. That's where I am with the guy. Until he shows what was considered his best quality, my expectations are guarded (far more so than for Winker, for example).

dougdirt
01-20-2013, 01:14 PM
Travieso wasn't an overdraft. I keep hearing people reiterate it and it just makes my head hurt.

Scouting report from the draft of the draft: 93-95 MPH FB, touches 100 MPH. Potentially plus slider. Fresh arm with no mechanical concerns for injury. No control concerns.

That is not an overdraft with where the Reds were drafting. Sure, pre-draft places had him ranked lower. It is likely a case of scouts failing to catch up, which we know that they do at times, because he was a reliever before his senior season because his father wouldn't allow him to start. So he came into the year off of a lot of radars.

lollipopcurve
01-20-2013, 03:05 PM
Travieso wasn't an overdraft. I keep hearing people reiterate it and it just makes my head hurt.

Scouting report from the draft of the draft: 93-95 MPH FB, touches 100 MPH. Potentially plus slider. Fresh arm with no mechanical concerns for injury. No control concerns.

That is not an overdraft with where the Reds were drafting. Sure, pre-draft places had him ranked lower. It is likely a case of scouts failing to catch up, which we know that they do at times, because he was a reliever before his senior season because his father wouldn't allow him to start. So he came into the year off of a lot of radars.

No new news to me. As I noted, not a big deal at all given that he was ranked pretty close to where he was taken.
The concern for me, again, is that the big fastball didn't show up. You can be as bullish on Travieso as you want, Doug. Some of us will wait to see more.

Superdude
01-20-2013, 03:57 PM
The concern for me, again, is that the big fastball didn't show up. You can be as bullish on Travieso as you want, Doug. Some of us will wait to see more.

Did he lose the fastball on the plane trip to Arizona? BA already said they were working on his mechanics. This was glorified practice.

REDREAD
01-21-2013, 12:10 PM
Given where Cingrani has been ranked in the league and team rankings by BA, it is clear that hardly anyone thinks he is just a middle reliever.

It seemed last year, Cingrani got dinged a lot for only being a FB pitcher.
It seemed that after Cingrani's callup last year, he suddenly got a lot more respect.

Maybe I have the timeline wrong, but for a long time, Cingrani was dominating the minors, and was pretty much dismissed as a one trick pony..

Benihana
01-21-2013, 12:49 PM
Given where Cingrani has been ranked in the league and team rankings by BA, it is clear that hardly anyone thinks he is just a middle reliever.

Except for you, Doug.

You are the biggest critic out there when it comes to Cingrani - or at least you have been in the past...

dougdirt
01-21-2013, 01:03 PM
Except for you, Doug.

You are the biggest critic out there when it comes to Cingrani - or at least you have been in the past...

Not his biggest critic, but probably one of them. And I am fine with that. Still, I think it is 50-50 as to where he winds up and that is a whole lot more than I thought before the season.

I still have my concerns though. From watching how he attacks hitters and then listening to him talk about what he does, or about his stuff, I don't see him making any changes any time soon to how he goes about it.

dougdirt
01-21-2013, 01:18 PM
It seemed last year, Cingrani got dinged a lot for only being a FB pitcher.
It seemed that after Cingrani's callup last year, he suddenly got a lot more respect.

Maybe I have the timeline wrong, but for a long time, Cingrani was dominating the minors, and was pretty much dismissed as a one trick pony..

I don't know that anyone gave him more respect who also thought he was a fastball only pitcher because of his 5 MLB innings. It is kind of crazy to change your opinion on 5 innings unless some new skillset showed up in those 5 innings (picking up new velocity, showing a brand new pitch). He threw his fastball 92% of the time in those 5 innings. So I can't see someone who was calling him a fastball only pitcher changing their tune over 5 innings where he threw 92 fastballs and 8 offspeed pitches.

REDREAD
01-22-2013, 04:21 PM
I don't know that anyone gave him more respect who also thought he was a fastball only pitcher because of his 5 MLB innings. It is kind of crazy to change your opinion on 5 innings unless some new skillset showed up in those 5 innings (picking up new velocity, showing a brand new pitch). He threw his fastball 92% of the time in those 5 innings. So I can't see someone who was calling him a fastball only pitcher changing their tune over 5 innings where he threw 92 fastballs and 8 offspeed pitches.

I'm just going off impressions. It just seems that Cingrani is a lot more favorably thought of now than he was before the season started.
As far as I know, he hasn't made that much more progress on his secondary pitches (Maybe I'm wrong). Before the season started, he was clearly pegged below Corcino.. Now Cingrani is arguably the Reds #1 or #2 pitching prospect and is being labeled as a "potential #3 starter".. I guess I never heard an expert say that until now.. Before the season, the reports were "one trick pony, blah. Maybe a bullpenner".. Maybe the consensus hasn't changed that much.. His heavy reliance on the FB and lack of a legit breaking ball is a legit concern.

Maybe it wasn't his 5 IP at the MLB level that changed the experts' opinion.. I can't read people's mind, but it seems like his stock has shot way up over the last 8 months. I am going to assume the Reds still envision him as a potential SP, since that's the role they've always had him in the minors.

dougdirt
01-22-2013, 05:27 PM
I'm just going off impressions. It just seems that Cingrani is a lot more favorably thought of now than he was before the season started.
As far as I know, he hasn't made that much more progress on his secondary pitches (Maybe I'm wrong). Before the season started, he was clearly pegged below Corcino.. Now Cingrani is arguably the Reds #1 or #2 pitching prospect and is being labeled as a "potential #3 starter".. I guess I never heard an expert say that until now.. Before the season, the reports were "one trick pony, blah. Maybe a bullpenner".. Maybe the consensus hasn't changed that much.. His heavy reliance on the FB and lack of a legit breaking ball is a legit concern.

Maybe it wasn't his 5 IP at the MLB level that changed the experts' opinion.. I can't read people's mind, but it seems like his stock has shot way up over the last 8 months. I am going to assume the Reds still envision him as a potential SP, since that's the role they've always had him in the minors.
Before the season he only had rookie ball to rely on. Now he has shown that his fastball/change up/slider is at least good enough to get by in AA and also that he can throw 150 innings in a season, a good barrier to get to without issue (he topped out around 80IP in JUCO). His stock clearly rose, though I am not sure his stuff did any improvement. We just saw that his current stuff was good enough to get by in AA quite well. I don't think there is any argument that he is the #1 pitching prospect. Everyone I have talked to has that as Stephenson. Where he falls between #2 and #4 is up for debate though.

lollipopcurve
01-22-2013, 06:32 PM
We just saw that his current stuff was good enough to get by in AA quite well.

I think we saw a little more than that. He pretty much overpowered AA hitters. Then, even though we just got a glimpse of him in the bigs, we saw that his fastball plays there too. Tiny sample, but 9 Ks in 5 innings of work tells you his stuff is more than just good for AA, IMO.

dougdirt
01-22-2013, 07:47 PM
I think we saw a little more than that. He pretty much overpowered AA hitters. Then, even though we just got a glimpse of him in the bigs, we saw that his fastball plays there too. Tiny sample, but 9 Ks in 5 innings of work tells you his stuff is more than just good for AA, IMO.

It may be. But 5 innings doesn't tell me it is. Guys had never seen him before. He has funny mechanics. He is a lefty. Not saying he can't do it there, but I don't think we know he can either yet.

In AA, his walk rate spiked because he wasn't able to put hitters away as easily.

REDREAD
01-22-2013, 11:55 PM
. Where he falls between #2 and #4 is up for debate though.

Ok.. so what do you see his upside as?
I am just curious.. Do you think he might be #4 due to flaws in him, or is it just because you think Stephenson and 2 other pitchers are truly exceptional.

IMO, Cingrani is the clear #2 pitching prospect at this point. That could change this season, but that's where I have him now. Although I think his floor (decent lefty reliever) is a nice "Win" for the farm system any time you can produce a guy like that.

I'm just wondering.. there was some gnashing of teeth when the Reds traded Donnie Joseph, and it seems like Cingrani is clearly a superior prospect to him.

Anyhow, to the point.. where to you envision Cingrani being eventually?

dougdirt
01-23-2013, 12:14 AM
Ok.. so what do you see his upside as?
I am just curious.. Do you think he might be #4 due to flaws in him, or is it just because you think Stephenson and 2 other pitchers are truly exceptional.

IMO, Cingrani is the clear #2 pitching prospect at this point. That could change this season, but that's where I have him now. Although I think his floor (decent lefty reliever) is a nice "Win" for the farm system any time you can produce a guy like that.

I'm just wondering.. there was some gnashing of teeth when the Reds traded Donnie Joseph, and it seems like Cingrani is clearly a superior prospect to him.

Anyhow, to the point.. where to you envision Cingrani being eventually?
I have him at #4 because I don't see a reason to doubt, at least from a pitches standpoint, that the other three aren't starters. I don't think Cingrani can start without improving his slider. Upside, he can be a #2 pitcher. Solid to good fastball velocity, good deception and outstanding ability to locate it. Real good change up. If he can get his slider to an average pitch (which is still a ways from what it is right now), he can be a heck of a starter. If the slider doesn't develop, he is probably a 7th inning reliever profile type, perhaps an 8th inning guy.

NeilHamburger
01-23-2013, 12:27 AM
A little surprised to see Hamilton as an A- prospect.

I just tend to be very very skeptical of speed prospects with very little power. It seems like 90% of them go the way of Dee Gordon/Pokey Reese etc...

I'll believe it transitions over when I see it.

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 12:35 AM
A little surprised to see Hamilton as an A- prospect.

I just tend to be very very skeptical of speed prospects with very little power. It seems like 90% of them go the way of Dee Gordon/Pokey Reese etc...

I'll believe it transitions over when I see it.

Hamilton is weird. Ive seen some lists that have him as high as the overall number 3 prospect and some that have him as low as 30th. It really comes down to the base stealing. Some think he will be the next lou brock on the bases, while others will say that stealing off minor league catchers and pitchers isn't much of an accomplishment. Also, hamilton was atrocious in the AFL for being such a highly rated prospect. I think that hurt his stock in many eyes.

I sit in the middle of the two arguments. Even if he ends up living up to the hype youre looking at the next juan pierre. Great ball player but not earth shattering.

Steve4192
01-23-2013, 07:53 AM
A little surprised to see Hamilton as an A- prospect.

I just tend to be very very skeptical of speed prospects with very little power. It seems like 90% of them go the way of Dee Gordon/Pokey Reese etc...

I'll believe it transitions over when I see it.

Unlike most speed prospects, Hamilton has shown an affinity for doing whatever it takes to get on base. He'll gladly take a walk or lay down a bunt if the situation calls for it.

Steve4192
01-23-2013, 08:07 AM
Hamilton is weird. Ive seen some lists that have him as high as the overall number 3 prospect and some that have him as low as 30th. It really comes down to the base stealing. Some think he will be the next lou brock on the bases, while others will say that stealing off minor league catchers and pitchers isn't much of an accomplishment. Also, hamilton was atrocious in the AFL for being such a highly rated prospect. I think that hurt his stock in many eyes.

I sit in the middle of the two arguments. Even if he ends up living up to the hype youre looking at the next juan pierre. Great ball player but not earth shattering.

I'm not feeling the Juan Pierre comp. For one, Pierre had a noodle arm in the OF. Hamilton has a legit SS arm if he ever figures out how to use it, which should be easier now that all his throws are going to be overhand. For another, Pierre had a GREAT hit tool and terrible secondary skills. Hamilton has a good hit tool and is developing very good secondary skills. The only thing they have in common is speed.

I see Hamilton more as a Luis Castillo-type. A switch-hitter with speed and plate discipline. He doesn't have quite the contact skills that Castillo had, but he more than offsets that with better gap power. He might not hit many balls over the fence, but he has shown the ability to put himself in scoring position about 40 times a year without the benefit of a SB.

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 10:46 AM
Ive never seen a scouting report on hamilton that says he has a legit ss arm. Most say his arm isnt even close. And idk how you think he gets in scoring position like that, he had 38 xbh this season. That is nothing to write home about, even stubbs can do that

mdccclxix
01-23-2013, 11:00 AM
I've always read his arm is good enough, but his footwork isn't.

Steve4192
01-23-2013, 11:08 AM
Ive never seen a scouting report on hamilton that says he has a legit ss arm. Most say his arm isnt even close. And idk how you think he gets in scoring position like that, he had 38 xbh this season. That is nothing to write home about, even stubbs can do that

Most reports I have seen say Hamilton has legit SS arm strength but has terrible mechanics that prevent him from showing it in games. The hope is that playing in the OF, where all the throws use an overhand delivery, will allow him to finally put his natural arm strength to use.

As far as getting himself into scoring position from the dish, I don't think the difference between 38 XBH and 40 XBH is all that outrageous. I rounded up. Big deal.

As far as comparing him to Stubbs, I hope you realize you actually paid Billy a compliment. Stubbs was always perceived as a guy with solid power when he was a prospect and slugged in the mid-400s in the majors before his contact skills eroded to the point where he was useless. If Hamilton, a guy who is purported to have '20' power on the scouting scale, can hit with as much pop as Drew Stubbs, I will be ecstatic.

Steve4192
01-23-2013, 11:11 AM
I've always read his arm is good enough, but his footwork isn't.

Ditto.

I've never heard anyone doubt his arm strength. They only doubt his ability to bring that arm strength to bear in games. Hopefully, the simpler footwork and throwing angles in the OF will allow his arm to play up to it's potential.

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 11:31 AM
http://projectprospect.com/article/2012/08/22/billy-hamilton-scouting-report

http://baseballprospectnation.com/2012/05/02/scouting-report-billy-hamilton-ss/

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/5/17/3025083/prospect-of-the-day-billy-hamilton-ss-cincinnati-reds-scouting-report

Those are 3 scouting reports that say his arm is mediocre at best.

And i was comparing him to stubbs in the way that stubbs was your last leadoff man and he didn't get very many xbh.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/billy-hamilton-cincinnati-reds-shortstop-prospect-fangraphs-scouting-report-video/

and since people like fangraphs on here alot here is another one that say his arm leaves something to be desired

REDREAD
01-23-2013, 11:41 AM
I have him at #4 because I don't see a reason to doubt, at least from a pitches standpoint, that the other three aren't starters. I don't think Cingrani can start without improving his slider. Upside, he can be a #2 pitcher. Solid to good fastball velocity, good deception and outstanding ability to locate it. Real good change up. If he can get his slider to an average pitch (which is still a ways from what it is right now), he can be a heck of a starter. If the slider doesn't develop, he is probably a 7th inning reliever profile type, perhaps an 8th inning guy.

Ok, that's fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to explain that.

Steve4192
01-23-2013, 12:28 PM
http://projectprospect.com/article/2012/08/22/billy-hamilton-scouting-report

http://baseballprospectnation.com/2012/05/02/scouting-report-billy-hamilton-ss/

http://www.minorleagueball.com/2012/5/17/3025083/prospect-of-the-day-billy-hamilton-ss-cincinnati-reds-scouting-report

Those are 3 scouting reports that say his arm is mediocre at best.


I agree his arm is mediocre, meaning 'average'. That makes it a legit arm. Most scouting reports had him as a '45/50' on arm strength at SS, which puts him well above average for CF, and certainly nothing like the noodle-armed Juan Pierre.




And i was comparing him to stubbs in the way that stubbs was your last leadoff man and he didn't get very many xbh.


Stubbs had a ton of extra base hits on a per hit basis. His problem wasn't a lack of power. It was a lack of contact. When he made contact, he hit the ball with authority. Of Stubbs 431 career hits, 130 went for extra bases (30.2%). If Billy Hamilton can get on base at a 350 OBP clip and drive 30% of his hits for extra bases, the Reds will have a potential superstar on their hands. Hell, I'll be stoked if Billy can deliver 25% of his hits for extra bases, and even 20% would still be darn solid for a leadoff man with his OBP/speed profile.

coachpipe
01-23-2013, 12:58 PM
Id like to believe Hamilton will be a stud. His defense shouldnt be a problem even if he is changing positions. He is athletic and as we all know fast. If he can manage to have great plate discipline enabling him to work the count and get on base, then everything else will fall into place. Meaning lots and lots of runs and hopefully championships

Scrap Irony
01-23-2013, 01:41 PM
Hamilton is weird. Ive seen some lists that have him as high as the overall number 3 prospect and some that have him as low as 30th. It really comes down to the base stealing. Some think he will be the next lou brock on the bases, while others will say that stealing off minor league catchers and pitchers isn't much of an accomplishment. Also, hamilton was atrocious in the AFL for being such a highly rated prospect. I think that hurt his stock in many eyes.

I sit in the middle of the two arguments. Even if he ends up living up to the hype youre looking at the next juan pierre. Great ball player but not earth shattering.

I don't think "many" care all that much about a few ABs after a full season, especially considering the pounding he took in that season. If they are letting those ABs influence them, you may want to point to the AFL season Mike Trout had last year to quell any doubts (.279/ .321/ .245/ .600).

Hamilton will be, as M2 so astutely pointed out in another thread, doubted until he performs well at the major league level. Moreso than most, he's the type of player that many sabermetricians tend to struggle with-- he's fast but has little over the fence power and his SBs are hard to gauge. There's a bias there, for many.

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 02:20 PM
Back to the beginning of this. I believe that hamilton will be like pierre in that he will be a singles hitting outfielder that teams like to run on. Thats all. Also those scouting sites gave him a bad grade on arm strength. Most said it wasnt good enough to play short.

Everyone in the afl had just played a long season. And he was AWFUL. Yes its only 20 games but that doesnt change the fact that he played poorly against better compettition. Look at hos slash line. Its alot worse than trouts

coachpipe
01-23-2013, 02:47 PM
Back to the beginning of this. I believe that hamilton will be like pierre in that he will be a singles hitting outfielder that teams like to run on. Thats all. Also those scouting sites gave him a bad grade on arm strength. Most said it wasnt good enough to play short.

Everyone in the afl had just played a long season. And he was AWFUL. Yes its only 20 games but that doesnt change the fact that he played poorly against better compettition. Look at hos slash line. Its alot worse than trouts

werent most worse than trout? the guy came in his rookie year and competed for MVP..Now thats not your everyday thing

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 02:58 PM
werent most worse than trout? the guy came in his rookie year and competed for MVP..Now thats not your everyday thing

Did you miss scrap irony's post? He started the comparison

coachpipe
01-23-2013, 03:04 PM
Did you miss scrap irony's post? He started the comparison

Ha yes I must have. sorry

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 03:18 PM
I don't think "many" care all that much about a few ABs after a full season, especially considering the pounding he took in that season. If they are letting those ABs influence them, you may want to point to the AFL season Mike Trout had last year to quell any doubts (.279/ .321/ .245/ .600).

Hamilton will be, as M2 so astutely pointed out in another thread, doubted until he performs well at the major league level. Moreso than most, he's the type of player that many sabermetricians tend to struggle with-- he's fast but has little over the fence power and his SBs are hard to gauge. There's a bias there, for many.

I would disagree that people won't care "about a few ABs." If players have a great fall league their stock can skyrocket, so if a player has an abysmal fall league it's well within the realm of reason to surmise that their stock could fall.

Scrap Irony
01-23-2013, 03:49 PM
I would disagree that people won't care "about a few ABs." If players have a great fall league their stock can skyrocket, so if a player has an abysmal fall league it's well within the realm of reason to surmise that their stock could fall.

Historically, this has not proven to be the case.

Trout had a horrid AFL. Horrid. Worse than Hamilton's, in fact.

Trout: .245/ .279/ .321/ .600

Hamilton: .234/ .306/ .328/ .634

Despite this, he was widely regarded as the top overall prospect coming into the 2012 season.

Three years ago, our own Devin Mesoraco had a very poor AFL. He was still ranked among the top five prospects in the game afterward. That same year, Kris Negron OPSed more than 950-- he didn't get talked about as any great prospect afterward.

In short, it's great is you dominate the AFL after a tough season, but it's really not a big deal if you don't.

dougdirt
01-23-2013, 05:48 PM
Back to the beginning of this. I believe that hamilton will be like pierre in that he will be a singles hitting outfielder that teams like to run on. Thats all. Also those scouting sites gave him a bad grade on arm strength. Most said it wasnt good enough to play short.

Everyone in the afl had just played a long season. And he was AWFUL. Yes its only 20 games but that doesnt change the fact that he played poorly against better compettition. Look at hos slash line. Its alot worse than trouts

I will just tell you now, his arm WAS enough to play shortstop. Would it have been a stand out arm there? No. Did he need to improve his mechanics to actually use it to the best of its ability? Absolutely. But when he had the right mechanics and put something behind it, it was plenty strong enough to handle shortstop. The problem was, he didn't do it often. What he did do often was sidearm is over to first base or even almost "submariner" it over there and it led to "loopy" or "rainbow" types of throws that a lot of people read as "poor arm". But it wasn't. It was poor mechanics.

You can go back and watch the entire video if you want, but I am linking this video I shot from this summer in Pensacola. It should start at the defensive stuff. Watch it and pay attention to all of the different throwing motions he does in the video. Also pay attention to the throw he makes at 6:05-6:10. The arm IS there when he does it right.

http://youtu.be/bxlAwVEdcAc?t=5m32s

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 07:06 PM
Mike trout was 19 in the afl not 21. Can we stop comparing the two? Outside of being outfielders they have
nothing in common.

And based on that video alone he should quit trying to bat left handed. And his throws were hard only if he was already moving forward or off a crow hop. The SINGLE throw at 6 20 mark was a good throw and play, but it wasnt eye popping. He got a slow runner. His arm is reminiscent of eckstein

Scrap Irony
01-23-2013, 07:33 PM
Mike trout was 19 in the afl not 21. Can we stop comparing the two? Outside of being outfielders they have nothing in common.

This has nothing to do with their ages, nor their respective prospect ranks nor where they are postionally. Trout had a lousy AFL, yet his ranking didn't suffer. The same thing holds true (or will) for Hamilton.

If you'd like, I can come up with more top prospects who had poor AFL "seasons" that were largely ignored as a small sample size. Just this season, Nick Castellanos had just about as bad an AFL as did Hamilton. He's widely considered the best prospect in the Tiger system and one of the best in baseball. Dexter Fowler had as poor an AFL season as did Hamilton-- his ranking actually went up after his poor 20-game season. Buster Posey is widely considered among the best players in the game today; his AFL season in 2009 was very poor, yet he was a top prospect after that season as well.

If you'd prefer a Red in the discussion, our own Devin Mesoraco had a poor AFL two years ago, but he was still among the top prospects in the game.

In short, you're wrong.

It's cool. We're all wrong sometimes.

dougdirt
01-23-2013, 07:37 PM
Mike trout was 19 in the afl not 21. Can we stop comparing the two? Outside of being outfielders they have
nothing in common.

And based on that video alone he should quit trying to bat left handed. And his throws were hard only if he was already moving forward or off a crow hop. The SINGLE throw at 6 20 mark was a good throw and play, but it wasnt eye popping. He got a slow runner. His arm is reminiscent of eckstein

I think you may have forgotten just how bad Ecksteins arm was. But still, The throw was strong enough in the gap to make it. Again, it isn't an arm that you are going to write home about, but as he showed on that specific play, when he needs it, and he does things right, it is there. Where a lot of the "poor arm" came from was from exactly what I described in the previous post.

mth123
01-23-2013, 09:08 PM
I generally prefer power guys to speed guys, but if Billy Hamilton puts up Juan Pierre's 13 year career with an OBP of .346 he will have been a huge success.

A failure would be more along the lines of Chris Morris or Esix Snead. Based on their non-SB offensive minor league numbers, Hamilton seems to be a lot better than those guys.

Salukifan2
01-23-2013, 11:48 PM
This has nothing to do with their ages, nor their respective prospect ranks nor where they are postionally. Trout had a lousy AFL, yet his ranking didn't suffer. The same thing holds true (or will) for Hamilton.

If you'd like, I can come up with more top prospects who had poor AFL "seasons" that were largely ignored as a small sample size. Just this season, Nick Castellanos had just about as bad an AFL as did Hamilton. He's widely considered the best prospect in the Tiger system and one of the best in baseball. Dexter Fowler had as poor an AFL season as did Hamilton-- his ranking actually went up after his poor 20-game season. Buster Posey is widely considered among the best players in the game today; his AFL season in 2009 was very poor, yet he was a top prospect after that season as well.

If you'd prefer a Red in the discussion, our own Devin Mesoraco had a poor AFL two years ago, but he was still among the top prospects in the game.

In short, you're wrong.

It's cool. We're all wrong sometimes.

And if you remember my original post about this a page ago i said his poor showing in the AFL "may" have hurt his stock a little. And yes age does matter IF WE ARE COMPARING TWO PLAYERS, which i did not start anyway. YOU started the comparisons with trout!

I didn't say everyone's stock plummits if they have a bad AFL. I said it may be a contributing factor as to why some pundits have Hamilton as low as 30th. My few comment about the AFL having some influence has spiraled into an argument about his arm strength and Mike Trout. And NEWS FLASH Hamilton is not as highly touted as Posey, Trout, or Fowler were. There are alot more differing opinions on Hamilton currently than there were with those guys 3 and 4 years ago. Which could be a contributing factor to his volatility in rankings.

I'm not wrong, YOU sir pick and choose what you wanted to read from my posts because you are a Kool-Aid drinking reds fan who is going bannanas about Hamilton (as you probably should) and cannot possibly stomach the notion that some other people may not think Hamilton is the second coming of Ty Cobb.

Furthermore!, it is possible for two people to draw separate conclusions from the same set of data, which is something that a loud minority of people on this board do not understand.

klw
01-24-2013, 09:12 AM
As noted by Baseball America when Hamilton was drafted, Hamilton could throw 94 mph. There is some arm strength there that he should be able to draw upon and hone with the different outfield throwing techniques.

I can't the direct link, see post 4
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76380&highlight=billy+hamilton+scouting

Scrap Irony
01-24-2013, 04:02 PM
And if you remember my original post about this a page ago i said his poor showing in the AFL "may" have hurt his stock a little. And yes age does matter IF WE ARE COMPARING TWO PLAYERS, which i did not start anyway. YOU started the comparisons with trout!

I didn't say everyone's stock plummits if they have a bad AFL. I said it may be a contributing factor as to why some pundits have Hamilton as low as 30th.

That contributing factor comment is wrong. Prospect pundits do not seriously consider the small sample size of the AFL, as evidenced by the history of prospects and some of their poor AFL numbers.



My few comment about the AFL having some influence has spiraled into an argument about his arm strength and Mike Trout. And NEWS FLASH Hamilton is not as highly touted as Posey, Trout, or Fowler were.


NEWS FLASH: You may want to check your math there. Hamilton is similar to Fowler in terms of prospect-dom. He's close to Posey. IN John Sickels' mid-season review, for example, Hamilton's ranked as the 15th best prospect in the game. Fowler (16th) and Posey (14th) were ranked right around there after their poor AFL seasons.

And it's an argument because these two comments you made are questionable at best and outright wrong at worst.

Hamilton's arm is more than acceptable-- he threw in the 90s as a high schooler. (This has been verified, IIRC, in an ESPN article.)

And Mike Trout was used as an example of a prospect that didn't drop in the eyes of prospect mavens or scouts after a poor AFL-- an AFL season that was worse than Hamilton's, in fact.



There are alot more differing opinions on Hamilton currently than there were with those guys 3 and 4 years ago. Which could be a contributing factor to his volatility in rankings.

Perhaps.



I'm not wrong, YOU sir pick and choose what you wanted to read from my posts because you are a Kool-Aid drinking reds fan who is going bannanas about Hamilton (as you probably should) and cannot possibly stomach the notion that some other people may not think Hamilton is the second coming of Ty Cobb.

You may want to review the posting histories of Redszone regulars. I'm not typically one who goes "bannanas" (sp) over prospects. For instance, I haven't really liked Yonder Alonso, Devin Mesoraco, or Mike Leake all that much.

I certainly don't think Hamilton will become the "next Ty Cobb." My hope is that he turns out to be a Brett Butler clone. I recognize that as his ceiling, mind you, and would be very happy with him turning out to be Juan Pierre offensively.

I do find it telling that you'd attack the arguer and not the argument. Here at Redszone, we prefer the latter. It makes for better discussion.


Furthermore!, it is possible for two people to draw separate conclusions from the same set of data, which is something that a loud minority of people on this board do not understand.

True, two people can draw different conclusions from the same data. However, data-- cold, hard facts-- have to be correct. You provided erroneous data as a conclusion, then got mad and called me named after I corrected it.

Salukifan2
01-24-2013, 04:35 PM
You're right, Keith Law and Sickels may not count the bad AFL stats into their rankings. I said, "i have seen him as low as 30th on some boards list". The lists that had him that low were obscure lists found at this link, http://fantasyrundown.com/2013_MLB_Prospects.html,
Not all lists are made by the top writers for fangraphs, SI, and espn. Some are very obscure and their list makers are people who may apply a greater importance upon, say, an AFL season.

Once again, i dont care about trout, i misread his numbers on the AFL site because they put BA last in the slash line. His only stat better in the AFL was BA, there you are correct and i was wrong for saying he was better than Hamiton.

And, again i was speculating on a hypothesis, the "cold hard facts" are there are about 100 different prospect lists out there and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this board knows the formulas and variables they use to derive their rankings.

The facts are that there are a million different opinions of Hamilton and nobody knows how all of them are all formulated.

"NEWS FLASH: You may want to check your math there. Hamilton is similar to Fowler in terms of prospect-dom. He's close to Posey. IN John Sickels' mid-season review, for example, Hamilton's ranked as the 15th best prospect in the game. Fowler (16th) and Posey (14th) were ranked right around there after their poor AFL seasons."

Thats only Sickels! I am talking about his volatility. He is all over the place in rankings. Quit looking at only Law and Sickels. There are tons of other lists. That is what i am speaking of.

My entire intent was to give reasons why he is volatile.

Finally, i compared him to Juan Pierre because, though he may be able to throw hard off of a mound, he has shown he can't do it regularly in the field. Could this change in the outfield? Yes. I am not going to just say it will though without seeing him play there.

Scrap Irony
01-24-2013, 05:06 PM
You're right, Keith Law and Sickels may not count the bad AFL stats into their rankings. I said, "i have seen him as low as 30th on some boards list". The lists that had him that low were obscure lists found at this link, http://fantasyrundown.com/2013_MLB_Prospects.html,
Not all lists are made by the top writers for fangraphs, SI, and espn. Some are very obscure and their list makers are people who may apply a greater importance upon, say, an AFL season.

Once again, i dont care about trout, i misread his numbers on the AFL site because they put BA last in the slash line. His only stat better in the AFL was BA, there you are correct and i was wrong for saying he was better than Hamiton.

And, again i was speculating on a hypothesis, the "cold hard facts" are there are about 100 different prospect lists out there and neither you, nor I, nor anyone else on this board knows the formulas and variables they use to derive their rankings.

The facts are that there are a million different opinions of Hamilton and nobody knows how all of them are all formulated.

"NEWS FLASH: You may want to check your math there. Hamilton is similar to Fowler in terms of prospect-dom. He's close to Posey. IN John Sickels' mid-season review, for example, Hamilton's ranked as the 15th best prospect in the game. Fowler (16th) and Posey (14th) were ranked right around there after their poor AFL seasons."

Thats only Sickels! I am talking about his volatility. He is all over the place in rankings. Quit looking at only Law and Sickels. There are tons of other lists. That is what i am speaking of.

My entire intent was to give reasons why he is volatile.

Finally, i compared him to Juan Pierre because, though he may be able to throw hard off of a mound, he has shown he can't do it regularly in the field. Could this change in the outfield? Yes. I am not going to just say it will though without seeing him play there.

I choose Sickels and BA largely because they've withstood the test of time and have data that goes back ten years or so. Baseball Prospectus is another good site. I also appreciate Fangraphs. Those sites have all had the discussion about how they view AFL numbers. They (largely) ignore them as small sample sizes. Law is the same way. (He wrote an exceptional article on Hamilton that expolains why his AL numbers mean bupkiss, btw. You may want to read it.

Hamilton's rankings are pretty much in the same 15 spots throughout all of the established (and unestablished) web sites. That's not volatile. Their opinions (and write-ups of him as a player) may differ more. And that's about right for most of the prospects not in the Top five to ten.

For example, Trevor Bauer is ranked everywhere from 5th to 25th. Oscar Taveras' MLB prospect (12) rank is far from his rank with Sickels (1 or 2, depending on the day). Addleston Simmons is ranked everywhere from just in front of Hamilton (14)to the bottom of the list (96).

As to his arm, you said it was weak (compared it to Pierre's in that teams will run on it) and that he had a bad grade on arm strength. His arm strength, as pointed out by many posters, isn't bad-- he can bring it at near 90 mph. It's his "loopy" side-arm infield angle that's poor. As an OF, the throwing motion is completely different. It should allow him to unleash a bit more.

And, while that's certainly not yet quantiable, it's at least as valid a theory as your insistence that he'll be "run on" as an outfielder.

Salukifan2
01-24-2013, 07:57 PM
Once again. There are dozens of other lists. Are they as reputable? maybe not. But they are lists just the same. That is my point. Taveras being 2 or 3 on most lists compared to 12 on mlb isn't near;y as drastic as Hamilton being as high as 3rd and as low as 30th. That is not extreme volatiltity but it is more volatile than Taveras or Myers. I do not remember the lists i got those rankings off of so if you wish to counter again youll have to track them down.

And back to his arm. I will believe it when i see it. That is all. He may very well have a cannon. I have not seen any videos that show it. There are times when he is playing short that he gets his body and feet in the right position and he puts some mustard on the throw, but even then im not seeing a guy who throws 94.

Im fine with being proven wrong. He will probably be up by september at least. Here's to hoping he does prove me wrong.

Superdude
01-24-2013, 09:21 PM
Once again. There are dozens of other lists. Are they as reputable? maybe not. But they are lists just the same.

Anyone can make a list and throw it on the web. Doesn't make it worth anything.

M2
01-24-2013, 09:35 PM
Anyone can make a list and throw it on the web. Doesn't make it worth anything.

And most aren't.

mace
01-24-2013, 10:11 PM
Wait a minute. Did Brittingham.Sam turn into Salukifan2 right in the middle of the debate?

dougdirt
01-24-2013, 11:55 PM
The difference between 10-30 on a national list is next to no difference really. We are talking about an elite level prospect whether the guy is ranked 10th or 30th.

Hamilton is about as interesting of a case study as there can be for saber-friendly prospect guys. He goes against a lot of things because of how interestingly different his skillset is.

Cooper
01-25-2013, 10:07 AM
2 thoughts:

1. I know WAR measures running ability and it will make or break a players perceived value - but is it going to measure a lot of little things a guy like Hamilton may/may not do - sort of like Manny in left field ("Manny being Manny") where he did 2 or 3 weird things a week that never really showed up in the box score, but may have impacted the team's avbility to win. Could Hamilton be the reverse? A player that adds to the overall ability of a team's chance to win, but because it's hard to perceive -it sort of gets undervalued (by the sabermetric community). Pete Rose did about 3 things a week that helped the team win- but they were little weird things that were tough to value - same with Ozzie Guillen.

2. Billy's power from the left side will improve as he gets more reps- any of us that make that change from one side to another - increase our power over time- his swing may get a little smoother.

M2
01-25-2013, 12:24 PM
2 thoughts:

1. I know WAR measures running ability and it will make or break a players perceived value - but is it going to measure a lot of little things a guy like Hamilton may/may not do

Hamilton has the speed to break WAR. With him, it's not just how many extra bases he takes, but how many extra bases he takes that almost no one else can take. And he might just set a new bar for stealing 1B. Think about how that affects BABIP. The other team effectively got him out, at least it did what would get most every other player out. Yet there he is on 1st ... and now he's on 2nd ... and now he's on 3rd ... and now he's crossing the plate when, dammit, he should have been out.

That doesn't even touch on the errors he might induce. Billy Hamilton has the potential to be the New Math. How we think about the game, how we crunch the numbers - that could be in for an overhaul.

Scrap Irony
01-25-2013, 12:30 PM
Billy Hamilton has the potential to be the New Math. How we think about the game, how we crunch the numbers - that could be in for an overhaul.

Absolutely. doug and M2 are both right-- he's the most fascinating case in baseball right now for just about every prospect hound in the game and for most of the sabre community. (Though Mike Trout might also have something to say there.)

Hamilton's speed-adjusted WAR could very well double the next highest person on the list. He could be the Babe Ruth of the WAR speed set. And that makes me giddy.

Imagine a line of .225/ .320/ .380 with a WAR in the top ten of the game.

Could happen.

Could very well happen.

Salukifan2
01-25-2013, 01:00 PM
Correct me of im wrong but doesnt WAR not care about how you got your bases but just that you got them?

dougdirt
01-25-2013, 01:03 PM
Correct me of im wrong but doesnt WAR not care about how you got your bases but just that you got them?

Sure it cares. A home run is better than a triple is better than a double is better than a single is better than a walk is better than a HBP. A triple is better than a double and a steal. A double is better than a single and a steal.

klw
01-25-2013, 01:50 PM
Have there been any studies to see if a triple is actually better than a double plus a steal? Obviously a triple removes the possibility of a CS and the steal may come after another out has occurred, but does a triple actually mean higher expected run production.

Steve4192
01-25-2013, 02:34 PM
Have there been any studies to see if a triple is actually better than a double plus a steal? Obviously a triple removes the possibility of a CS and the steal may come after another out has occurred, but does a triple actually mean higher expected run production.

Yes, because a triple has a 100% probability of clearing the bases while a double does not. If you've got a slow runner on first and the double was of the 'stretching a single' variety, the double might not score the runner. A triple, by definition, will send the runner home.

AtomicDumpling
01-25-2013, 06:14 PM
Have there been any studies to see if a triple is actually better than a double plus a steal? Obviously a triple removes the possibility of a CS and the steal may come after another out has occurred, but does a triple actually mean higher expected run production.

The linear weight of a triple is 1.063 runs.
The linear weight of a double is 0.764 runs.

That 0.299 runs is a pretty big difference.

The numbers above are the average of all base-out states. The "base-out state" is a term referring to the number of outs in the inning and the locations of base runners. There are 24 possible base-out states when a hitter comes to the plate.

For example, the base-out state with the largest difference between a triple and a double is 2 outs with men on 1B and 3B. The difference here is 1.96 runs for a triple and 1.46 runs for a double for a difference of .500 runs.

Another one of the base-out states is 2 outs and a runner on second. In this example a triple is worth 1.080 runs while a double is worth 1.020 runs. This is the base-out state with the smallest difference (0.060 runs) between a triple and a double. If the batter who hit a double in this situation subsequently stole 3rd base it would add an extra .050 expected runs, which is still not quite as good as the a triple would have been. If he gets caught attempting to steal 3rd base it would result in -0.340 expected runs (Ouch!) therefore it is not worth the risk unless you expect an 85% chance of success.

A triple is always better than a double. This is true even if the player who hit the double subsequently steals 3rd base.

Scrap Irony
01-25-2013, 06:29 PM
The linear weight of a triple is 1.063 runs.
The linear weight of a double is 0.764 runs.

That 0.299 runs is a pretty big difference.

How much is a stolen base worth? If added to the double, is it equal to the triple? If not, how much less is it?

dougdirt
01-25-2013, 06:33 PM
How much is a stolen base worth? If added to the double, is it equal to the triple? If not, how much less is it?

The steal is worth about 0.18 runs. So no, it isn't equal to the triple. It brings it closer though.

AtomicDumpling
01-25-2013, 06:48 PM
The steal is worth about 0.18 runs. So no, it isn't equal to the triple. It brings it closer though.

... and a Caught Stealing is worth -0.456 runs. So you better make it if you go!

Actually a caught stealing in that particular situation is far more damaging than that. The average linear weight of a Caught Stealing is -0.456 runs, but most of those are for attempted steals of second base. If you are already on second base and get busted trying to steal third the damage is worse than getting thrown out at second because you are losing a runner that was already in scoring position. I don't have an exact linear weight value for getting caught stealing 3rd base, but it is much worse than -0.456 runs.

RedsManRick
01-25-2013, 09:26 PM
... and a Caught Stealing is worth -0.456 runs. So you better make it if you go!

Actually a caught stealing in that particular situation is far more damaging than that. The average linear weight of a Caught Stealing is -0.456 runs, but most of those are for attempted steals of second base. If you are already on second base and get busted trying to steal third the damage is worse than getting thrown out at second because you are losing a runner that was already in scoring position. I don't have an exact linear weight value for getting caught stealing 3rd base, but it is much worse than -0.456 runs.

http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html

Well, if you're attempting a steal from 2B with nobody on 1B and 0 outs, you're going from RE of 1.189 to either:

Success: 1.482 (+.297 runs)
Failure: 0.297 (-.892 runs)

So break-even is at about 75% success rate when attempting with 0 outs.

With -2- and 1 out (0.725 RE):
Success: 0.983 (+.258 runs),
Failure: 0.117 (-.608 runs)
Break-even with 1 out is at 70%.

With -2- and 2 outs (0.344 RE)
Success: 0.387 (+.043 runs)
Failure: 0.000 (-.344 runs)
Break-even with 2 outs is 89%.

So the best risk/reward comes with 1 out, but 0 outs is pretty similar.

That said, I wonder how having his speed changes the chances of scoring from 2nd or 3rd respectively. We know he'll score on any single (even an IF single apparently), but he's also more like to score from 3B than the average runner. When you combine the fact that Joey Votto will be close behind, I think it probably swings the odds in favor of staying put when he's on 2B unless it's a virtual lock.

757690
01-25-2013, 11:01 PM
One thing to note is that these runs expectancy charts are based on data from the the heart of the steroid era, 1999-2002. I have to imagine that those values would be different if based on the current run scoring environment.

Has there been any RE charts based on newer data?

AtomicDumpling
01-26-2013, 05:28 AM
One thing to note is that these runs expectancy charts are based on data from the the heart of the steroid era, 1999-2002. I have to imagine that those values would be different if based on the current run scoring environment.

Has there been any RE charts based on newer data?

True, the chart RedsManRick posted is ten years old, but it still proves the concept we were discussing. The run expectancies change a little bit each year because after all the data is derived from real baseball games and every game is different.

You can go to Baseball Prospectus to see the Run Expectancy charts for any year you like: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/sortable/index.php?cid=1091223

It can be wise to use a chart that combines data from a few years because data from a single season can have too small of a sample size for some events (for example, how many times per season does someone hit a triple with men on 1st and 3rd with 0 outs?). Here is a larger matrix from Tango's site: http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Here is a good chart that gives the linear weight for each hit type or event type cross-referenced with the base/out state: http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902event.html
It is a bit old but you can find a newer one if you look around.

Scrap Irony
01-26-2013, 09:19 AM
That said, I wonder how having his speed changes the chances of scoring from 2nd or 3rd respectively. We know he'll score on any single (even an IF single apparently), but he's also more like to score from 3B than the average runner. When you combine the fact that Joey Votto will be close behind, I think it probably swings the odds in favor of staying put when he's on 2B unless it's a virtual lock.

That's a good point and not one I had considered overly much. I think the calculus changes with the cleanup hitter up to bat, especially with only one out. (This could also lead to both Votto and the #2 hitter-- Phillips?-- boosting their stolen base attempts to career highs as part of double steals behind Hamilton.)

Another question/ challenge for you, RMR/ Atomic Dumpling:

Set-Up:
Hamilton's on 1B. Phillips has gotten out without advancing him. I assume it's better to have Hamilton successfully steal 2B (with the opposing team then walking Votto to bring up another, lesser hitter that could hit into a double play) than for him to stay put.

How much better-- mathematically-- is it? In short, how much does that stolen base improve the Reds' chances to score runs? Because it changes the calculus of the whole inning, it can't be simply the 0.983 number, can it? Wouldn't it then have to change pretty significantly Cincinnati's favor?

Because, if so, I could see Hamilton running pretty much every time he gets on 1B, no matter the situation.

Scrap Irony
01-26-2013, 09:27 AM
One thing to note is that these runs expectancy charts are based on data from the the heart of the steroid era, 1999-2002. I have to imagine that those values would be different if based on the current run scoring environment.

Has there been any RE charts based on newer data?

Yeah.

The lower the run scoring environment (and the lower the slugging), the more important gaining bases becomes. So the more likely a stolen base means something.

The calculus, at this point, is going to be somewhere around 70% but could very well be less than 65% for a particular season and going forward. If that calculus does indeed change, so might players themselves. We could see another sea change in the game, with scouts focusing on speed guys again up the middle. (Their probable range difference might also boost WAR.)

Personally, I love a mixture of big boppers and little mites flying everywhere. It's seems to be more inclusive somehow.

mth123
01-26-2013, 09:40 AM
That's a good point and not one I had considered overly much. I think the calculus changes with the cleanup hitter up to bat, especially with only one out. (This could also lead to both Votto and the #2 hitter-- Phillips?-- boosting their stolen base attempts to career highs as part of double steals behind Hamilton.)

Another question/ challenge for you, RMR/ Atomic Dumpling:

Set-Up:
Hamilton's on 1B. Phillips has gotten out without advancing him. I assume it's better to have Hamilton successfully steal 2B (with the opposing team then walking Votto to bring up another, lesser hitter that could hit into a double play) than for him to stay put.

How much better-- mathematically-- is it? In short, how much does that stolen base improve the Reds' chances to score runs? Because it changes the calculus of the whole inning, it can't be simply the 0.983 number, can it? Wouldn't it then have to change pretty significantly Cincinnati's favor?

Because, if so, I could see Hamilton running pretty much every time he gets on 1B, no matter the situation.

I'M not RMR or AD, but I don't risk making an out at 2B when Votto is coming up when the pay-off probably just means a walk to Votto anyway. I think Votto is so head and shoulders above everyone else in the line-up that I think the team has a better chance with him at bat and a runner on 1st than some one else up with runners on first and second. That's no slight at Ludwick, Bruce or Frazier, I just think Votto is that good. He's the best hitter the Red have had in my lifetime and that includes Rose, Bench, Davis, Larkin, Morgan Perez, Foster, Pinson and anyone else you can name. The closest was probably Kevin Mitchell during his short stint here or maybe Kal Daniels before he was hurt and his career faded.

I only have vague images of Robinson's last season, so maybe he'd compare, but Votto is the best of the rest.

Scrap Irony
01-26-2013, 09:48 AM
I'M not RMR or AD, but I don't risk making an out at 2B when Votto is coming up when the pay-off probably just means a walk to Votto anyway. I think Votto is so head and shoulders above everyone else in the line-up that I think the team has a better chance with him at bat and a runner on 1st than some one else up with runners on first and second. That's no slight at Ludwick, Bruce or Frazier, I just think Votto is that good. He's the best hitter the Red have had in my lifetime and that includes Rose, Bench, Davis, Larkin, Morgan Perez, Foster, Pinson and anyone else you can name. The closest was probably Kevin Mitchell during his short stint here or maybe Kal Daniels before he was hurt and his career faded.

I only have vague images of Robinson's last season, so maybe he'd compare, but Votto is the best of the rest.

If that's the case, you've got to limit Hamilton's attempts a great deal, which, in turn, will significantly lower his value. In essence, mth, you're willing to take around 50 bases off your team's total just for Votto to maybe add those bases back.

mth123
01-26-2013, 09:53 AM
If that's the case, you've got to limit Hamilton's attempts a great deal, which, in turn, will significantly lower his value. In essence, mth, you're willing to take around 50 bases off your team's total just for Votto to maybe add those bases back.

Probably saves 10 to 15 or so outs as well. Hamilton can run when Phillips is up to see if he and Phillips can do some damage before Votto heads up there or can be the lead runner on a double steal after Votto walks and one of the others is up, but no running while Votto is hitting IMO.

Scrap Irony
01-26-2013, 10:29 AM
Probably saves 10 to 15 or so outs as well. Hamilton can run when Phillips is up to see if he and Phillips can do some damage before Votto heads up there or can be the lead runner on a double steal after Votto walks and one of the others is up, but no running while Votto is hitting IMO.

I just don't think that makes sense mathematically, though I could be wrong.

kaldaniels
01-26-2013, 10:37 AM
Intersting points being raised here.

Is it better to have 1 man on 2nd with Votto up, or men on 1st and 2nd with Ludwick (or whoever is cleanup) up? It may be a situational thing.

My head tells me that if they are conceding a walk to Votto you should take that most everyday of the week though my heart wants to see Votto hit.

HokieRed
01-26-2013, 10:42 AM
Intersting points being raised here.

Is it better to have 1 man on 2nd with Votto up, or men on 1st and 2nd with Ludwick (or whoever is cleanup) up? It may be a situational thing.

My head tells me that if they are conceding a walk to Votto you should take that most everyday of the week though my heart wants to see Votto hit.

The answer is to have a 4th guy who will punish them hard enough, often enough, that pitching around Votto does not seem like the automatic course. Whether Ludwick is that guy seems doubtful to me, though, as to what was available at about his price, he's a reasonable choice.

mth123
01-26-2013, 10:58 AM
I just don't think that makes sense mathematically, though I could be wrong.

A runner on first is in scoring position with Votto up there. A votto extra base hit is going to score him anyway. A single will send him to 3B and runners on 1st and 3rd with the rest of the line-up coming up is better than Hamilton on Second and Votto being walked. I don't think Votto will ever get a chance to drive in a runner from second base with 1B open whether its Hamilton or anyone else on base. IF Votto makes an out, Hamilton gets in the same position anyway most likely. If they want him to take another base for Ludwick and the boys, he can always steal after Votto is out. I just don't take the chance of him being thrown out with Votto hitting not to mention the larger hole between 1B and 2B with a runner on first giving Votto an even bigger advantage.

Of course, If I was the opposition, I'd walk Votto anyway if there is some one on base whether its first or second. But the teams of the NL will pitch to him in that situation.

Scrap Irony
01-26-2013, 11:02 AM
If they walk Votto after a Hamilton steal, the Reds will have more people on base. More people on base means more scoring opportunities. I really think it's that simple, mth.

mth123
01-26-2013, 11:07 AM
If they walk Votto after a Hamilton steal, the Reds will have more people on base. More people on base means more scoring opportunities. I really think it's that simple, mth.

It means more guys LOB. I think they are more likely to get Hamilton in from 1B with Votto hitting than him from second with somebody else up there.

I will concede that adding a walk to Votto increases the chance of a big inning, but I think Votto hitting increaes the chances of scoring a run as opposed to coming up with nothing.

As for those weights, those are made with an average hitter up there. I think some one as exceptional as Votto changes the picture.

Steve4192
01-26-2013, 11:24 AM
If they walk Votto after a Hamilton steal, the Reds will have more people on base. More people on base means more scoring opportunities. I really think it's that simple, mth.

Exactly.

If other teams are willing to concede a 1000 OBP to Votto with a runner on second, the Reds should be ecstatic. A free baserunner is worth more than the potential for an extra base hit. As good as Joey is, he 'only' gets an extra-base hit in 11% of his plate appearances. Bumping his OBP up by 585 points (versus his career average of 415) is worth WAY more than that 11% chance that he gets an extra-base hit.

Steve4192
01-26-2013, 11:31 AM
It means more guys LOB. I think they are more likely to get Hamilton in from 1B with Votto hitting than him from second with somebody else up there.

I will concede that adding a walk to Votto increases the chance of a big inning, but I think Votto hitting increaes the chances of scoring a run as opposed to coming up with nothing.

As for those weights, those are made with an average hitter up there. I think some one as exceptional as Votto changes the picture.

What's wrong with more guys LOB?

Men LOB is a natural extension of having a lot of guys get on base. I'd even wager that men LOB correlates pretty highly with run scoring. If you lead the league in men LOB, odds are you also had a boatload of baserunners and were among the league leaders in runs scored as well.

mth123
01-26-2013, 11:56 AM
What's wrong with more guys LOB?

Men LOB is a natural extension of having a lot of guys get on base. I'd even wager that men LOB correlates pretty highly with run scoring. If you lead the league in men LOB, odds are you also had a boatload of baserunners and were among the league leaders in runs scored as well.

Nothing is worng with more guys on base, I'm just saying I'd rather have Votto hitting with a runner on first than some one else with that Runner stealing second and Votto walking. I think the Reds chances of scoring a run are better with Votto hitting. I think the chances of a 3 run homer are better with Votto walking, but, IMO, there is a lot more chance of getting nothng as well. The drop-off from Votto to anybody else is huge IMO.

You also need to factor in the runner getting thrown out or picked-off and now Votto comes up with nobody on and two outs. I don't risk making the out in front of Votto.

Scrap Irony
01-26-2013, 12:00 PM
Nothing is worng with more guys on base, I'm just saying I'd rather have Votto hitting with a runner on first than some one else with that Runner stealing second and Votto walking. I think the Reds chances of scoring a run are better with Votto hitting. I think the chances of a 3 run homer are better with Votto walking, but, IMO, there is a lot more chance of getting nothng as well. The drop-off from Votto to anybody else is huge IMO.

You also need to factor in the runner getting thrown out or picked-off and now Votto comes up with nobody on and two outs. I don't risk making the out in front of Votto.

I understand what you're saying, but don't think the math supports your thinking at all, even when including the possible stolen base at a 70% rate. (Which is low for Hamilton, IMO.)

mth123
01-26-2013, 12:02 PM
I understand what you're saying, but don't think the math supports your thinking at all, even when including the possible stolen base at a 70% rate. (Which is low for Hamilton, IMO.)

Again, if the math is based on linear weight and the probablitlies they arrive at from a large sample of all players I don't think it applies when the best hitter in the game is up and the alternaitive is one of the guys after him. I'd need to see the weights based on thise numbers.

mth123
01-26-2013, 12:04 PM
NM

Scrap Irony
01-26-2013, 01:02 PM
Again, if the math is based on linear weight and the probablitlies they arrive at from a large sample of all players I don't think it applies when the best hitter in the game is up and the alternaitive is one of the guys after him. I'd need to see the weights based on thise numbers.

I think you saw them, mth.


If other teams are willing to concede a 1.000 OBP to Votto with a runner on second, the Reds should be ecstatic. A free baserunner is worth more than the potential for an extra base hit. As good as Joey is, he 'only' gets an extra-base hit in 11% of his plate appearances. Bumping his OBP up by 585 points (versus his career average of 415) is worth WAY more than that 11% chance that he gets an extra-base hit.

mth123
01-26-2013, 01:50 PM
Not sure I buy it. I get the worth based on the linear weight, but again do the Red's have a better chance of scoring with Votto on Base or with Votto hitting with a runner on. Obviously if we have a league average hitter coming up and another on deck its better for Hamilton to run. If the first guy is walked, then all the better, but these guys aren't league average hitters. I just don't buy that taking the bat from Votto's hands increases the chance of scoring. I'd rather have Votto's .330 BA and .600 Slugging Percentage with a guy as fast as Hamilton on 1B then Ludwick's .250ish BA with runners on first and second.

I think Votto has a zero percent chance of driving in a runner from second. They are going to take the bat from his hands. Stay put and Votto could still hit a single and put Hamilton on 3rd with those guys coming up and it eliminates the chance of a caught stealing or a pick-off.

I hate to disparage the dead, but the Ryan Freel years made me very anti-steal. That 70% success rate is again base on all players over a large sample. If you are going to take a chance in front of the game's best hitter, you'd better be safe a lot more than 70% of the time (and those CS rates don't count times picked-off which makes the risk higher).

Making outs on the bases is a pet peeve. If you're going to take a chance it needs to be in front of a judy hitter not the good ones. I think the big steal guys should hit 6th and 7th. The bottom of the order, in front of the weaker hitters, is where the extra bases are needed to get them around. Joey Votto doesn't need the help. He just needs the guy in front of him to keep from screwing it up by getting picked off of thrown out.

mth123
01-26-2013, 02:33 PM
NM. Bad Math.

AtomicDumpling
01-26-2013, 06:58 PM
I don't have time to do the math right now, but I strongly believe having Hamilton on second and Votto on first would yield a significantly higher expected runs than having Hamilton on first and Votto at the plate. You might be a little less likely to score one run, but you would be a lot more likely to score multiple runs. However, the risk of Hamilton getting busted in his attempt to steal second base is a major impediment even with Hamilton's blazing speed. The negative impact on run expectancy of a Caught Stealing is much, much higher than the positive impact of a successful steal. If you are going to have Hamilton steal second you should do it while Phillips is at the plate, and ideally have him steal third too.

In general, stolen base attempts have a negligible affect on run scoring. The Steals, Pickoffs and Caught Stealings cancel each other out over the long haul unless the runner has an 80% or better success rate (70% if you ignore pickoffs). The stolen base is an exciting play, but it is not a good idea to build your offense around it.

As mth123 stated, the run expectancy charts are generated by recording every single event in MLB and calculating the average number of runs that scored after that event. So it basically assumes that the batter and runners are league average in every respect. When you have a runner as fast as Hamilton and a batter as awesome as Votto the real run expectancy in that situation would be higher than the run expectancy matrix indicates. But those numbers should be higher across the board in pretty much the same ratios, so as a tool for picking the best strategy to employ in a particular situation the matrix should still be your guide.

If I were the manager I would have Hamilton bat leadoff and have Joey Votto and his .450+ OBP bat second. Mathematically that is the best way to do it to maximize run production.

mth123
01-26-2013, 07:04 PM
Looks like the break-even rate with Votto up and ludwick up next is around 82%. That seems like a pretty high bar for success when you count pick-offs as well as caught stealing.




Situation Outcomes Runs
Times on No Running 100 N/A
Votto Sngles or Walks and Ludwick Singles 4 4
Votto Singles or Walksand Ludwick Out 20 0
Votto Sngles or Walks and Ludwick HR 1 3
Votto Singles or Walks and Ludwick 2B or 3B 2 4
Votto Singles or Walkks and Ludwick Walks 3 0
Votto 2B or 3B and Ludwick Out 4 5
Votto 2B or 2B and Ludiwck 1B 1 2
Votto 2B or 3B and Ludwick HR 0 1
Votto 2B or 3B and Ludwick 2B or 3B 0 1
Votto HR and Ludwick Doesn't 4 8
Votto and Ludwick HR 0 0
28

Votto would make 61 outs in this scenario.

Situation Outcomes Runs
Times on Base and Runs 100 0
Hamilton CS 18 0
Hamilton Steals, Votto BB 82 0
Ludwick Singles 11 11
Ludwick 2b or 3B 4 8
Ludwick HR 3 9
Ludwick out 55 0
Ludwick Walks 7 0
82 28

dougdirt
01-29-2013, 12:01 AM
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/1/28/3925786/2013-baseball-farm-system-rankings

John came out with his farm system rankings this afternoon. He had the reds ranked 15th overall.

Salukifan2
01-29-2013, 12:16 AM
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/1/28/3925786/2013-baseball-farm-system-rankings

John came out with his farm system rankings this afternoon. He had the reds ranked 15th overall.

nice

Superdude
01-29-2013, 02:10 AM
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/1/28/3925786/2013-baseball-farm-system-rankings

John came out with his farm system rankings this afternoon. He had the reds ranked 15th overall.

Cardinals at #1 scares the daylights outta me. That's already a heck of solid team. Add in plenty of payflex by avoiding the Pujols mega-contract and we could be in trouble.

Pony Boy
01-29-2013, 10:43 AM
How good is Jesse Winker? What are his chances of being a top-25 prospect in a couple of years?

Salukifan2
01-29-2013, 11:03 AM
[QUOTE=Pony Boy;2799526]How good is Jesse Winker? What are his chances of being a top-25 prospect in a couple of years?[/QUOTE

Hes good. His power numbers may be a little inflated because he was playing in billings, but his k/bb was very good over his 60 game season. I think he should be out of short season A and into at least -A ball
o start this season.

Benihana
01-29-2013, 11:22 AM
How good is Jesse Winker? What are his chances of being a top-25 prospect in a couple of years?

Tough to project that kind of future status although he certainly seems to have the pedigree and hitting tools. What he does in his this year in his first full season will be a lot more telling.

Stephenson could also be a Top 25 prospect - as early as this season.

Benihana
01-29-2013, 11:25 AM
http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/1/28/3925786/2013-baseball-farm-system-rankings

John came out with his farm system rankings this afternoon. He had the reds ranked 15th overall.

Seems about right. Reds have a league average system at this point, which is impressive considering they don't have a single first round pick prior to 2011 in the system due to all the graduations and trades of the last couple years, and haven't really had a super high-profile international signing in five years (outside of Chapman of course).

Steve4192
01-29-2013, 11:57 AM
Seems about right. Reds have a league average system at this point, which is impressive considering they don't have a single first round pick prior to 2011 in the system due to all the graduations and trades of the last couple years, and haven't really had a super high-profile international signing in five years (outside of Chapman of course).

Agreed.

In light of the MLB performance of guys like Cozart & Frazier, I think he vastly under-rated them last year, but looks about right this year.

REDREAD
01-29-2013, 12:53 PM
Intersting points being raised here.

Is it better to have 1 man on 2nd with Votto up, or men on 1st and 2nd with Ludwick (or whoever is cleanup) up? It may be a situational thing.

My head tells me that if they are conceding a walk to Votto you should take that most everyday of the week though my heart wants to see Votto hit.

Here's what run expectancy tables say:

0 outs:
runner at 1st: .941
runner at 1st and 2nd: 1.556

1 out:
runner at 1st: .441
runner at 1st and 2nd: .642

2 out:
runner at 1st: .061
runner at 1st and 2nd: .015 (I found this very interesting)


The big problem I have with run expectancy tables is this scenerio: let's say Billy singles with no outs, and then steals 2nd base and then scores. That counts as a run for runner at 1st, no outs, even though Billy's stolen base actually helped the run score (This is how I understand it).
Therefore, IMO, doing the math to determine the SB% success rate to steal is flawed. Ideally, you want run expectancy for a runner at 1b with no attempt of stealing, bunting, hitting to the 2b side to advance the runner.
It would be interesting to see run expectancy when no "smallball" tactics are employed vs when they are. Maybe the numbers don't change, but RE is flawed for figuring out how valuable a SB is, in my opinion.

Not to pour salt on any wounds, but I also feel that slow runners with high OBP are overrated. The assumption is that a slow guy at 1b scores at the same rate as a Billy Hamilton/Drew Stubbs does. That is not true. Of course OBP is important, but speed/baserunning also is important.

AtomicDumpling
01-29-2013, 09:55 PM
Here's what run expectancy tables say:

0 outs:
runner at 1st: .941
runner at 1st and 2nd: 1.556

1 out:
runner at 1st: .441
runner at 1st and 2nd: .642

2 out:
runner at 1st: .061
runner at 1st and 2nd: .015 (I found this very interesting)


The big problem I have with run expectancy tables is this scenerio: let's say Billy singles with no outs, and then steals 2nd base and then scores. That counts as a run for runner at 1st, no outs, even though Billy's stolen base actually helped the run score (This is how I understand it).
Therefore, IMO, doing the math to determine the SB% success rate to steal is flawed. Ideally, you want run expectancy for a runner at 1b with no attempt of stealing, bunting, hitting to the 2b side to advance the runner.
It would be interesting to see run expectancy when no "smallball" tactics are employed vs when they are. Maybe the numbers don't change, but RE is flawed for figuring out how valuable a SB is, in my opinion.

Not to pour salt on any wounds, but I also feel that slow runners with high OBP are overrated. The assumption is that a slow guy at 1b scores at the same rate as a Billy Hamilton/Drew Stubbs does. That is not true. Of course OBP is important, but speed/baserunning also is important.

Correction: Your numbers for the 0 out scenario are correct, but the other two scenarios are off.

0 outs:
runner at 1st: .941
runner at 1st and 2nd: 1.556

1 out:
runner at 1st: .562
runner at 1st and 2nd: .963

2 out:
runner at 1st: .245
runner at 1st and 2nd: .471



1B 2B 3B 0 outs 1 outs 2 outs
x x x 0.544 0.291 0.112
1B x x 0.941 0.562 0.245
x 2B x 1.170 0.721 0.348
1B 2B x 1.556 0.963 0.471
x x 3B 1.433 0.989 0.385
1B x 3B 1.853 1.211 0.530
x 2B 3B 2.050 1.447 0.626
1B 2B 3B 2.390 1.631 0.814


In your scenario with Hamilton hitting a single with nobody out, then stealing 2nd base, then scoring would chart like this:

Hamilton singles and steals scenario:
0 outs and Hamilton at the plate -- 0.544 expected runs (starting point at beginning of inning)
Hamilton singles, runner on 1st with no outs -- 0.941 expected runs (Hamilton added 0.397 expected runs by hitting a single 0.941 -0.544 = 0.397)
Hamilton steals second, runner on 2nd with no outs -- 1.170 expected runs (Hamilton added another 0.229 expected runs by stealing 2nd)

So you can see that the run expectancy matrix does give Hamilton credit for the stolen base.

You can take the amount of value added by the stolen base (in this case 0.229 extra runs) and use it to calculate the success rate required to break even. If the base stealer's expected chance of success exceeds the break even rate then it is a good gamble to attempt the stolen base.

You are correct that the run expectancy matrix assumes that runners have average speed and that the batter is an average hitter. The run expectancy tables are derived from averaging every MLB play, there are no charts available for each individual player, and even if there were the samples sizes would be too small to have value.

So if the runners or batters are above average in skill you can expect the true run expectancies to be higher. The pitcher and defense are also assumed to be average in the charts. The charts give a us a good idea of the relative values of all the base-out states and can be used as a guide for strategy, for example, would a bunt be wise or should I risk taking an extra base.

Your assertion that a fast guy is more likely to score from first than a slow guy is obviously correct. You can measure this to some degree by calculating the extra expected runs gathered by a runner who took an extra base, tagged up on a fly ball, beat out a double play, or stole a base.

For example, say Billy Hamilton singles with no outs like before, then Phillips singles to left field and Hamilton is able to advance all the way to 3rd base instead of 2nd base like an average runner would:

Hamilton takes extra base scenario:
0 outs and Hamilton at the plate -- 0.544 expected runs (starting point at beginning of inning)
Hamilton singles, runner on 1st with no outs -- 0.941 expected runs (Hamilton added 0.397 expected runs by hitting a single 0.941 - 0.544= 0.397)
Phillips singles to left and Hamilton advances to 3rd leaving us with men on 1st and 3rd and nobody out -- 1.853 expected runs

Slow Runner (Hanigan) does not take extra base scenario:
0 outs and Hanigan at the plate -- 0.544 expected runs (starting point at beginning of inning)
Hanigan singles, runner on 1st with no outs -- 0.941 expected runs (Hanigan added 0.397 expected runs by hitting a single 0.941 -0.544 = 0.397)
Phillips singles to left and Hanigan advances to 2nd leaving us with men on 1st and 2nd and nobody out -- 1.556 expected runs

So now we can see that Hamilton taking the extra base is worth 1.853 - 1.556 = 0.297 extra expected runs. Incidentally, that extra value is the same as if he had stopped at second on the hit, then stolen 3rd base. Those extra bases that Hamilton's speed allows will add up to a lot of extra runs for the Reds over the course of the season -- provided he can get on base at a high enough clip. It takes quite a lot of speed-generated extra bases to make up for a lesser OBP, especially when you consider that not getting on base in the first place costs the team an out. Staying on first base instead of stealing second base deprives the team of the extra expected runs, but it doesn't cost the team an out. Getting thrown out trying to steal second base not only deprives the team of the .229 extra expected runs, it also deprives the team of the .397 expected runs the runner earned by hitting the single.

Hamilton gets caught stealing with nobody out scenario:
0 outs and Hamilton at the plate -- 0.544 expected runs (starting point at beginning of inning)
Hamilton singles, runner on 1st with no outs -- 0.941 expected runs
Hamilton gets caught stealing second, no runners on and one out -- 0.291 expected runs (Hamilton just cost the team 0.650 expected runs and an out.)


What if the leadoff hitter got on base with a walk or a single, then the manager decided to bunt him over?

Bunt scenario:
0 outs and Hanigan at the plate -- 0.544 expected runs (starting point at beginning of inning)
Hanigan singles, runner on 1st with no outs -- 0.941 expected runs
Phillips sacrifice bunts and Hanigan advances to 2nd leaving us with a man on 2nd and one out -- 0.721 expected runs

This means that even though the sacrifice bunt was successful it still resulted in a reduction in expected runs. That's right -- the successful bunt hurt the teams chances of scoring. (Sometimes a sac bunt can slightly increase your chance of scoring a single run, but greatly reduces your chances of scoring multiple runs.) So when bunting your only chance of coming out ahead is if the defense screws up and fails to get an out somewhere. Of course there is also the chance the bunt fails altogether and you fail to advance the runner while still making an out, or the bunter can get himself into a two strike count while attempting to bunt. The odds are heavily against you when trying to bunt, especially if the defense is expecting it.

klw
01-30-2013, 08:41 AM
Great discussion and information on run expectancy. I was wondering if there is a site(s) or stat which shows runs scored vs runs expected to be scored as a measure of skill/speed of a baserunner. Namely the runner's hits/ walks were expected to bring x number of runs, he actually scored y runs in season a. Is there anywhere tracking if the individual exceeds his expected runs over the year? If so is there an adjustment made for teammates who hit into double plays? Should there be?

REDREAD
01-30-2013, 02:10 PM
Correction: Your numbers for the 0 out scenario are correct, but the other two scenarios are off.

0 outs:
runner at 1st: .941
runner at 1st and 2nd: 1.556

1 out:
runner at 1st: .562
runner at 1st and 2nd: .963

2 out:
runner at 1st: .245
runner at 1st and 2nd: .471



Thanks for catching that.. Obviously, that mistake was not intentional.



Hamilton singles and steals scenario:
0 outs and Hamilton at the plate -- 0.544 expected runs (starting point at beginning of inning)
Hamilton singles, runner on 1st with no outs -- 0.941 expected runs (Hamilton added 0.397 expected runs by hitting a single 0.941 -0.544 = 0.397)
Hamilton steals second, runner on 2nd with no outs -- 1.170 expected runs (Hamilton added another 0.229 expected runs by stealing 2nd)


I guess my point is that the runner at 1st no outs 0.941 expected runs also benefits from all stolen bases.
That makes this analysis a little bit flawed. (Using run expectancy)
I'm making up numbers here.. but let's say you have a sample of 100 guys at 1st base, no outs in your data where you
calculate run expectancy. If all 100 of them stole second successfully, wouldn't the run exepectancy for this sample
be higher than .941? Because the guy started out at 1b.. the run gets counted when computing run expectancy.

If you had a second sample of 100 guys at 1st base.. All of them get caught stealing.. When you calculate run expectancy
of this sample for runner at 1b, no outs, wouldn't it be zero runs expected?

I guess that's my point. The stolen bases are already factored in, thus you can't use Run Expectancy to calculate the benefit of the steal.
If I am wrong on this, please explain, but I think since actual game data is used to calculate run expectancy, the SB (and the caught stealings) are already factored in.

That's why I think one needs to have a run expectancy calculation with only station-to-station samples vs a calcuation of the various stolen bases/caught stealing scenerios. Maybe there's not enough data to accurately calculate this though.

AtomicDumpling
01-30-2013, 05:06 PM
Great discussion and information on run expectancy. I was wondering if there is a site(s) or stat which shows runs scored vs runs expected to be scored as a measure of skill/speed of a baserunner. Namely the runner's hits/ walks were expected to bring x number of runs, he actually scored y runs in season a. Is there anywhere tracking if the individual exceeds his expected runs over the year? If so is there an adjustment made for teammates who hit into double plays? Should there be?

Good question,

There are several such stats out there. Perhaps the best is the Ultimate Base Running (UBR) statistic on Fangraphs. It is defined here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/ultimate-base-running-primer/

Essentially it gives the runner credit or blame for taking extra bases or getting caught trying. It does NOT include stolen base attempts. It is a measure of how many extra runs he scored vs the number of expected runs based purely on his speed and aggressiveness on the basepaths.

Fangraphs also has a wSB stat that accounts for a players positive or negative contributions on stolen base attempts.

You can see these two stats under the Advanced tab on a player's FG page like this one for Brandon Phillips: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=791&position=2B

You can see there that Brandon has been an above average baserunner in terms of taking extra bases, but has been only very slightly above average as a base stealer.

UBR is built into a player's WAR score. WAR is the sum of a player's UBR (baserunning proficiency) plus his wRAA (Weighted Runs Above Average to measure his hitting and base stealing proficiency) and his UZR (Ultimate Zone Rating to measure his defensive proficiency).

If you really want to go crazy with baserunning stats go to a player's expanded baseball-reference page and check out the baserunning section. You can find out more than you will ever be able to handle. You can see how often he took an extra base as a runner.

Here is Brandon Phillips' expanded B-R page: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/phillbr01-bat.shtml

Refer to the baserunning section of that page. As an example of what you can learn, in 2012 there were 16 occasions when Brandon Phillips was a runner on 2nd base when the batter hit a single. He scored from 2nd only 9 of those 16 times and advanced to third the other 7 times.

In his career, Phillips has stolen 2nd base 115 times and was caught 48 times for a success rate of 70.6% (not too good). He has stolen 3rd base 38 times and caught 11 times for a success rate of 77.6% (pretty good). He has also been picked off 30 times (wow!). He has also been thrown out 52 times when attempting to take an extra base on one of his hits, attempting to tag up on a fly ball, doubled off on a liner or attempting to advance on a wild pitch or passed ball.