I'll keep voting Cisco until he gets a spot. Frazier is not in my top 5.
What makes a top prospect is a combination of the two -- and it's what separates Todd Frazier from Juan Francisco. For me, a prospect rating is essentially -- I'm simplifying -- (Ceiling) * (Likelihood of Reaching Ceiling). Likelihood is a combination of the underlying skill set as identified by scouts, it's development over time, and its validation through performance to date.
On a scale of 100, Fransisco or Rodriguez might have a 90 ceiling, but a 40 likelihood. Meanwhile, Frazier is sitting there at 80 and 80. Obviously the numbers are made up to illustrate the point, but that's my approach.
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
What's superficial to me are evaluations praising players based on certain peripherals when the player doesn't show particularly good or consistent production.
Let's face it, it's all subjective. Maybe more than anything, there are opinion leaders who adopt certain philosophies and people tend to buy into them.
IMO, what gets left out too often is actual production. Who has exhibited special abilities in the minor leagues. Lots of talk about walk rates. Not too much about HRs, extra base hits, knocking in runs on a consistent basis, hitting the ball with authority.
Last edited by Kc61; 10-19-2009 at 09:38 PM.
Domo Arigato, Here Comes Joey Votto
"I do what I want to do and say what I want to say."
What is likely to transfer forward, a players peripherals or a players 'production'? If you are looking at a guys walk rate, strikeout rate and power rate, then you go with his peripherals. If you are looking at anything else offensively, you are looking at the wrong things because the rest of it won't transfer forward. AVG, RBI and the likes don't transfer forward to the major league level.What's superficial to me are evaluations praising players based on certain peripherals when the player doesn't show particularly good or consistent production.
No one ignores power. Walk rates are important though too. Just as important if not more. Just look at the major leagues to see that. Players who don't walk generally don't produce at a league average level. You simply can't just ignore history and pretend that Francisco can get it done today without making some sort of dramatic change. He would literally have to up his walk rate by 50% just to be in a 'below average' range for a walk rate. The math has been shown in this forum before. Unless Francisco walks more or strikes out less (or hits 75 HR a year), he is going to struggle to OBP .320 in the major leagues. You simply can't be a very productive player like that even if you hit 30 HR.IMO, what gets left out too often is actual production. Who has exhibited special abilities in the minor leagues. Lots of talk about walk rates. Not too much about HRs, extra base hits, knocking in runs on a consistent basis, hitting the ball with authority.
"On-base percentage is great if you can score runs and do something with that on-base percentage," Baker said. "Clogging up the bases isn't that great to me."
Juan Francisco, has 1 stop in his career with over 100 at bats with an OPS over .800. Just throwing it out there. .712, .763 and .799 at the other stops.
I understand the stereotype. I also understand the argument about walk rate. I just think this guy, JF, is in the process of understanding the game, and his ability is off the charts. I prefer him to many of these solid, all around, traditional guys who may not have these special abilities. That's all.