Ha yes I must have. sorryOriginally Posted by Brittingham.Sam
Ha yes I must have. sorry
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.
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
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
Last edited by Salukifan2; 01-23-2013 at 07:24 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.
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.
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.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
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.
Last edited by Salukifan2; 01-23-2013 at 11:59 PM.
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/showt...ilton+scouting
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.
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.
Perhaps.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Salukifan2; 01-24-2013 at 08:00 PM.
Anyone can make a list and throw it on the web. Doesn't make it worth anything.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
Reply With Quote