Nor does it mean Wood's better. All it means is that Wood's not as unique as you positioned him.Originally Posted by dougdirt
Jay Bruce didn't detonate A ball as a first round pick. He hasn't risen that high. Homer Bailey didn't detonate A ball last year and he was a first-round pick from the year before.Originally Posted by dougdirt
Though once again the point you claimed that Bruce was unique. I love him, cyberdrafted him, I was the first person to mention his name on this board, but much as I like him as a prospect I'm not so obtuse as to think he's unique.
A) Yes, all over baseball. You're just too lazy to look. Either that or you don't want to burst this bubble you've created for yourself that the Reds have done something unique and wonderful.Originally Posted by dougdirt
B) The world is full of kids who hit 94 with another pitch. I went to high school with one. Unfortunately most never pitch in the majors.
C) Outfielders who can hit and field a bit aren't anything that just got invented by Jay Bruce.
D) You're right, you simply can't compare more advanced players to less advanced players. More advanced are worth a lot more.
E) Who is going to be a better talent in the long run is something that most no one does a good job of determining. The usual argument for prep arms, for instance, is based on ignorance. BA provides a classic example every year. Their failure rate on highly projected teenage hurlers makes for good comedy, but that's about it. Ryan Anderson is all too typical of the pitfalls inherent in "projectibility." Fans always think their system's prospects are more projectible. You don't know who's going to be a better talent in the end. You're just insisting the scenario that works best for the team you root for happens to be the operating intelligence at work here. It's not. You're grasping.