This is just a general observation based on the Hamilton thread and this one. There's been a bent to somewhat dismissive/crticical takes on prospects who are still in there TEENS and have plenty of development time/growth time ahead of them.
As far as Torreyes goes, if his height ends up around 5'8" or 5'9" (not exactly hard to do given his youth and that he's already 5'7" at age 17), why would anyone fixate on his height? Is it just because I am 40 and remember Joe Morgan that I am not bothered by his height? Or is it because I have seen Dustin Pedroia play -someone who is not exactly tall?
Point is, perhaps we can just focus on the stuff that kinda matters with Torryes, which is whether he can hit and catch balls hit to him as well? Because if he keeps doing those things as he moves into his full season years in American ball, he's a genuine prospect, even if he never grows another inch.
Last edited by membengal; 02-19-2011 at 08:07 AM.
But, with his age, he could certainly grow a few inches still.
No, doug, they do not matter. I loathe generalizations as tools of the lazy. Each prospect should be evaluated on his merits, not lumped into a bucket and dismissed.
And those merits include things like, um, "hitting" and "fielding".
No, doug, it's lazy. And if you have started falling into this sort of player-evaluation lazy speak yourself, I challenge you to drop that. Odds are Torryes would not have succeeded to the level he did last year if he had the issues you are speaking of. Hence, my point that each prospect should be evaluated on his own merits. Focus should be on whether he can keep hitting, and if he doesn't, I don't think size has anything to do with it.
This is what kills me about such lazy dismissiveness...Joe Morgan, 5'7" 160 pounds.
I am NOT saying Torryes can ever be anything like Morgan, or that he will ever progress past A ball. Hell if I know. But I am comfortable that the final analysis for any prospect should be on actual results on the field, and last year it was clear that Torryes, even at his size, hit the ball with authority.
We've had to listen to the same generalizations crap with Cueto for years too. Short right-handed starter, oh nos! Horror! Only he's been really good. Even if he never throws another pitch in the big leagues, he's been a success.
Last edited by membengal; 02-19-2011 at 05:23 PM.
It isn't lazy. It is based on a long history of guys of a similar stature not making it. Size is a part of projecting a hitter. It isn't all of it, but size/strength certainly plays into ones power and ability to hit for an average. To pretend otherwise would be foolish.
Who's pretending otherwise? I simply stated my disappoointment w/ analysis that leads w/ lazy generalizations. I stand by that. Given what he did last year, I would be hella curious about if he profiles to be one of those who bucks the generalization. As opposed to a simple recitation that many people his size don't make it. That's pretty much a "duh" observation.
Last edited by membengal; 02-19-2011 at 07:30 PM.
So it is lazy to look at size of a prospect but to defend your argument you only mention two players in the last 40 years out of how many thousands of total players?
The numbers are not in your favor, like it or not. Size always has something to do with projections.
"When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
He's already done something very noteworthy in his debut last year. Whether he was 5'7" or 6'7". So god forbid analysis start with what he did last year and discuss what his approach is that allowed him to do that, etc., and whether it is the kind of thing he can carry forward. Because THAT would be interesting to read. Pretty much anyone with a pulse knows that generally shorter players don't profile as easy to see coming prospects, hence, "duh". What would be FAR more interesting are discussions of Torryes that don't begin with his shortness. I mentioned Morgan and Pedroia as reminders that not all players who succeed profile classic-ly. Should I have mentioned Hack Wilson too? Do you want me to run every name of such players in baseball history? Why? I know that not as many have made it at that height as at taller heights. But discussions don't end there, because sometimes players do make it from the shorter heights, and I would really be curious as to a look at whether or not Torryes might be one who can, as opposed to dismissive posts that he will not, simply because he is short.
Last edited by membengal; 02-19-2011 at 09:41 PM.
Baseball Almanac is pleased to present a comprehensive chart of ballplayer heights. Important notes about the chart: the most common heights are included (lesser common heights are in the fast facts) and the player's with ½ heights have been excluded (a breakdown of their exact numbers are in the fast facts as well).
Hypothetically, I'll create a football team 220 lb guys who run a 4.4 and bench press 400 lbs, you pick random guys off the street.
Generalities are generalities. They're not 100% but 're I could say with almost absolute certainty that my football team would win.
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.