Turn Off Ads?

View Poll Results: Who is Reds #4 Prospect

Voters
68. You may not vote on this poll
  • TJ Friedl

    1 1.47%
  • Josiah Gray

    2 2.94%
  • Shed Long

    0 0%
  • Jonathan India

    37 54.41%
  • Tony Santillan

    22 32.35%
  • Jose Siri

    2 2.94%
  • Tyler Stephenson

    4 5.88%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 85

Thread: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

  1. #61
    Someday Never Comes mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    22,492

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedTeamGo! View Post
    And yet it’s not possible for the most talented player in the draft to fall to 25...or in India’s case 5??

    Recall that is how this began. The original point was it’s not possible India is a generational talent (which I am not saying) because he fell to 5th.
    This isn't right, I made the point. There is no evidence that India is a generational talent. There was no buzz about it and 4 guys went before him so a bunch of people who do this for a living not only didn't think he was a generational talent, but he wasn't even considered the best guy for this single draft. Given that, I can't put him in my top 50 prospects until he actually shows something on the field against appropriate competition. He may have been worn down, but I am not going to make that assumption on him. He's a guy with no success in full season ball and is less proven than others who have had that success, including Tony Santillan, so I don't put him there until he does it. He may end up becoming a generational talent, which I would think is the best thing ever, but so far he's not and I can't rate him as such. It's that simple really.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    Daffy Duck RedTeamGo!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    11,333

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    This isn't right, I made the point. There is no evidence that India is a generational talent. There was no buzz about it and 4 guys went before him so a bunch of people who do this for a living not only didn't think he was a generational talent, but he wasn't even considered the best guy for this single draft. Given that, I can't put him in my top 50 prospects until he actually shows something on the field against appropriate competition. He may have been worn down, but I am not going to make that assumption on him. He's a guy with no success in full season ball and is less proven than others who have had that success, including Tony Santillan, so I don't put him there until he does it. He may end up becoming a generational talent, which I would think is the best thing ever, but so far he's not and I can't rate him as such. It's that simple really.
    Like I said when I responded to the original point “India aside...”

    You said because he fell to 5th he couldn’t be a generational talent.
    What would you say.....ya do here?

  4. #63
    Member Spanky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Northern Kentucky
    Posts
    569

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Okay everyone, just so you know for future reference a player can only be a generational talent if he was taken 1st or 2nd overall and that's final.
    The television crews left and about 10 reporters remained in the room. That's when Price took his turn doing the talking.
    What followed was a five-minute, 34-second expletive-filled tirade. The final tally was 77 uses of the "F" word or a variant and 11 uses of a vulgar term for feces (two bovine, one equine).

  5. #64
    Someday Never Comes mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    22,492

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedTeamGo! View Post
    Like I said when I responded to the original point “India aside...”

    You said because he fell to 5th he couldn’t be a generational talent.
    Let me clarify. There is no evidence that he's a generational talent. Had he been picked number one overall, then maybe somebody could make that argument. Since he wasn't, then he needs to perform to be a top 50 guy. I can't rate a guy that high based on College and short season ball. Uneven competition makes the stats unreliable and lots of guys have physical tools.

    Hunter Greene, for example, had a ton of buzz and the generational talent is an argument that could be made even though he wasn't picked first. I didn't have him in the top 50 either. Now I want t see some health before putting him there. He's right on the borderline of top 50 for me. It may be a down year, so he may end up higher than 50, but I think of top 50 as a guy who would disappoint if he's not a future All Star. I'm not really there with Greene yet. If he has a healthy year and can make it to 100 innings for the first time since he was a high school junior. I need to see him profile as a starter. He hasn't yet, Not even as a high school senior.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

  6. #65
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    22,760

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spanky View Post
    let me put it this way, some people have no issues learning math and being able to apply their knowledge of the subject in certain situations, while others struggle to learn the simple concepts of division,multiplication etc. so why can't it be the same way when it comes to the concepts of hitting and fielding in baseball.
    This makes sense. The issue if this is true, is now to identify it and quantify it.
    “We’re going to get the pitching.” -Bob Castellini

  7. #66
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    22,760

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    There have been only three generational talents that I can think of (completely open to more if anyone else can think of them):

    Griffey jr,
    Harper
    Greene

    And all of them were identified as such by age 16-17. Them to me is what it means to be a genereral talent... everyone can see it, as see it at a young age. If there isn’t a consensus on a player being a generational talent, then he isn’t one, imo.
    “We’re going to get the pitching.” -Bob Castellini

  8. #67
    Member RustyJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    232

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    There have been only three generational talents that I can think of (completely open to more if anyone else can think of them):

    Griffey jr,
    Harper
    Greene

    And all of them were identified as such by age 16-17. Them to me is what it means to be a genereral talent... everyone can see it, as see it at a young age. If there isn’t a consensus on a player being a generational talent, then he isn’t one, imo.
    Trout has 65 career WAR at 27 years old. What does his development at 16 have to do with him being a generational talent? And Buxton more talented than Votto? This is a wild thread.

  9. Likes:

    alwaysawarrior (12-11-2018)

  10. #68
    Daffy Duck RedTeamGo!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    11,333

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    Let me clarify. There is no evidence that he's a generational talent. Had he been picked number one overall, then maybe somebody could make that argument. Since he wasn't, then he needs to perform to be a top 50 guy. I can't rate a guy that high based on College and short season ball. Uneven competition makes the stats unreliable and lots of guys have physical tools.

    Hunter Greene, for example, had a ton of buzz and the generational talent is an argument that could be made even though he wasn't picked first. I didn't have him in the top 50 either. Now I want t see some health before putting him there. He's right on the borderline of top 50 for me. It may be a down year, so he may end up higher than 50, but I think of top 50 as a guy who would disappoint if he's not a future All Star. I'm not really there with Greene yet. If he has a healthy year and can make it to 100 innings for the first time since he was a high school junior. I need to see him profile as a starter. He hasn't yet, Not even as a high school senior.
    I’m not going to continue going the rounds on this, I wasn’t talking about India, just the overall point a player cannot be a generational talent if he falls to the 5th pick.
    What would you say.....ya do here?

  11. #69
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    22,760

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by RustyJ View Post
    Trout has 65 career WAR at 27 years old. What does his development at 16 have to do with him being a generational talent? And Buxton more talented than Votto? This is a wild thread.
    I will repeat:

    Talent is natural born ability.

    Skill is learned ability.

    A players production is the result of talent, skill and hard work.

    Talent alone doesn’t mean much, as Buxton reveals.

    An easier example to comprehend:

    Jay Bruce is more talented than Joey Votto, as their scouting reports and prospect ratings when they were young reveal. But Votto became the better player, even though he wasn’t as talented.
    Last edited by 757690; 12-10-2018 at 11:33 PM.
    “We’re going to get the pitching.” -Bob Castellini

  12. #70
    Member RustyJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    232

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    I will repeat:

    Talent is natural born ability.

    Skill is learned ability.

    A players production is the result of talent, skill and hard work.

    Talent alone doesn’t mean much, as Buxton reveals.

    An easier example to comprehend:

    Jay Bruce is more talented than Joey Votto, as their scouting reports and prospect ratings when they were young reveal. But Votto became the better player, even though he wasn’t as talented.
    That's just not right though. You're tossing aside everything that isn't speed, power, and flash as something anyone can just learn. What Votto has is absolutely natural born ability. That's why K/BB issues often spell the demise of otherwise talented prospects. It usually can't be coached away.

    The Trout thing is just crazy though. Come on. You literally couldn't build a better baseball player if you tried.

  13. Likes:

    alwaysawarrior (12-11-2018),OGB (12-12-2018)

  14. #71
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    22,760

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by RustyJ View Post
    That's just not right though. You're tossing aside everything that isn't speed, power, and flash as something anyone can just learn. What Votto has is absolutely natural born ability. That's why K/BB issues often spell the demise of otherwise talented prospects. It usually can't be coached away.

    The Trout thing is just crazy though. Come on. You literally couldn't build a better baseball player if you tried.
    You are conflating natural ability with learned ability.

    No one is born with the ability to hit. Players have better bat speed, better vision, better depth perception, better reflexes, etc. But a player can have all of those things, and still not be a good hitter, until they learn how to hit and work on it. Knowing which pitches to swing at and how to swing at them is a learned skill. That is not something a player is born with or without.

    Again, the Jay Bruce example points this out. He is more talented than Votto, but he never learned how to lay off the breaking pitch in the dirt. That is not because he was born unable to do so, it's because he never mastered it. Votto did, which is why he's a better player.

    And Trout is the player he is because of the skills he acquired and honed. Not because he has the most talent. Harper has more talent, and yet is not as good.
    “We’re going to get the pitching.” -Bob Castellini

  15. #72
    Member RustyJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    232

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    No one is born with the ability to hit. Players have better bat speed, better vision, better depth perception, better reflexes, etc. But a player can have all of those things, and still not be a good hitter, until they learn how to hit and work on it.
    A guy could have long legs, but not be fast until he learned how to run. Is that the argument?? Those are raw talents! They're innate characteristics that make it easier to learn and execute hitting.

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Again, the Jay Bruce example points this out. He is more talented than Votto, but he never learned how to lay off the breaking pitch in the dirt. That is not because he was born unable to do so, it's because he never mastered it.
    Like he just never got around to it? It's safe to say Jay was born unable to read and react to a breaking pitch in the dirt. He wasn't talented in that regard like his friend Joey Votto.

  16. #73
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    22,760

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by RustyJ View Post
    A guy could have long legs, but not be fast until he learned how to run. Is that the argument?? Those are raw talents! They're innate characteristics that make it easier to learn and execute hitting.



    Like he just never got around to it? It's safe to say Jay was born unable to read and react to a breaking pitch in the dirt. He wasn't talented in that regard like his friend Joey Votto.
    We will just have to disagree. People are born fast. They aren't born with the ability to hit a curve ball.
    “We’re going to get the pitching.” -Bob Castellini

  17. #74
    Probably not Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    7,509

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    I kind of agree with this. Votto had the cognitive ability, intellect, and interest, that he dedicated to baseball to become the player he is today.

    I wouldn't say he is an insane athlete or a baseball machine. I really think a lot of learned ability made him who he is today, rather than raw athletic talent.

    As for Trout, I think he was just not scouted enough to gather the hype train. If he was in a heavily scouted area, I think for sure he could have been identified as that good a talent. He was awesome and determined as an elite prospect very early once he started getting viewed. Maybe the Angels knew all along and would have taken him #1? We will never know because they picked where they did.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  18. #75
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Findlay, OH
    Posts
    526

    Re: Prospect Poll - Who is Reds #4 Prospect?

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman View Post
    I kind of agree with this. Votto had the cognitive ability, intellect, and interest, that he dedicated to baseball to become the player he is today.

    I wouldn't say he is an insane athlete or a baseball machine. I really think a lot of learned ability made him who he is today, rather than raw athletic talent.

    As for Trout, I think he was just not scouted enough to gather the hype train. If he was in a heavily scouted area, I think for sure he could have been identified as that good a talent. He was awesome and determined as an elite prospect very early once he started getting viewed. Maybe the Angels knew all along and would have taken him #1? We will never know because they picked where they did.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    I mostly agree with the natural born talent thing, but having the cognitive ability to identify pitches that quickly is a natural born physical talent, no?

  19. Likes:

    RedlegJake (12-11-2018)


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | cumberlandreds | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | The Operator