BA's Untouchable Prospects

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Dee Gordon is someone you want to target? A 145 pound shortstop (regardless of what he is listed at, if he weighs more than 150 pounds I would be incredibly surprised) with no power, power projection and at 21 years old is OPSing .740 in Low A is really someone we want to target? What separates him from a guy like Miguel Rojas other than the steals?

Looks like some of the actual professionals tend to agree with me

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9...ay%27s-edition

Source: Dodgers offer could tempt Jays — 1:52 p.m.

One source with knowledge of the Blue Jays' thinking predicted that the Dodgers could "catch their attention" with an offer that included third baseman Josh Bell, shortstop Devaris Gordon and hard-throwing pitching prospects from among the group of Josh Lindblom, Ethan Martin and Nathan Eovaldi.

Bell, 22, and Gordon, 21, are considered premium everyday players — at positions where the Blue Jays don't have clear starters for the future.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Benihana

Here we go with the month-by-month cherrypicking again.

The methodology that has brought such hits as "Homer Bailey Is Ready" and "Drew Stubbs Has Figured Out How to Hit" and "Miguel Perez Is the Reds' Catcher of the Future."

[TRF]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Yeah, because the first month of the season in Low A ball isn't nearly as valuable as looking at the more recent ones, especially when the skillsets and stats suggest a major change (particularly with the plate discipline went from 9/1 K to BB in April to 21/23 in May-now). I could care less about what happened in April because his skillset has certainly changed.

You never used this argument regarding Stubbs. And no I don't want to rehash our million page Stubbs debate.

I think the point is, you use stats when it fits your argument/philosophy. You'll use contradictory stats to prop up players you like, and dismiss them when it's a player you aren't as fond of. Yeah, you have been right many times, but frankly I'd say your record on prospects, as far as projecting them is about .500. I see you say things like "yeah but have you seen him play" a lot, often in regards to players I know for most of us it's impossible to see play. Guys at Billings or in the GCL. I think you have garnered such an inside track that you way over value Reds' prospects, especially one acquired via the draft in round #1. Your constant over valuing of Bailey over Cueto comes to mind. I think you have over-valued Alonso too.

I get why your mindset works this way, but you pass off your opinions like they are fact, and well, they ain't. I'd still kill to have a tenth of the access you have. Geography doesn't allow me to see any major or minor league games in person. I'm limited to the independent Central Baseball League. Not much in the way of futures for those guys.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by TRF

You never used this argument regarding Stubbs. And no I don't want to rehash our million page Stubbs debate.

I think the point is, you use stats when it fits your argument/philosophy. You'll use contradictory stats to prop up players you like, and dismiss them when it's a player you aren't as fond of. Yeah, you have been right many times, but frankly I'd say your record on prospects, as far as projecting them is about .500. I see you say things like "yeah but have you seen him play" a lot, often in regards to players I know for most of us it's impossible to see play. Guys at Billings or in the GCL. I think you have garnered such an inside track that you way over value Reds' prospects, especially one acquired via the draft in round #1. Your constant over valuing of Bailey over Cueto comes to mind. I think you have over-valued Alonso too.

I get why your mindset works this way, but you pass off your opinions like they are fact, and well, they ain't. I'd still kill to have a tenth of the access you have. Geography doesn't allow me to see any major or minor league games in person. I'm limited to the independent Central Baseball League. Not much in the way of futures for those guys.

Well said

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Benihana

Looks like some of the actual professionals tend to agree with me

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/9...ay%27s-edition

Those professionals can talk up guys all they want. I have talked to Dodgers scouts and have seen the guy in person. He looks like he is trapped in a 14 year olds body, except unlike the 14 year old, he isn't going to grow out of it. If it were 1980, he could probably be a solid MLB SS. Its not though. Weighing in at 145 pounds isn't going to cut it in the major leagues.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Those professionals can talk up guys all they want. I have talked to Dodgers scouts and have seen the guy in person. He looks like he is trapped in a 14 year olds body, except unlike the 14 year old, he isn't going to grow out of it. If it were 1980, he could probably be a solid MLB SS. Its not though. Weighing in at 145 pounds isn't going to cut it in the major leagues.

Why would Blue Jays officials be talking up Dodgers prospects? And why would Dodgers scouts talk down their own prospects? That sure makes sense.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by TRF

You never used this argument regarding Stubbs. And no I don't want to rehash our million page Stubbs debate.

Well if you are going to try and call me out on it, then we are going to rehash it. Stubbs in Low A went .702, .846, .469, .925 and .907 in OPS by month. The next year he went 944, 611, 664, 855, 861 by month. This year he has gone 673, 870, 599, 749.... Every year with Stubbs (this year included, although to a lesser extent) he has been a roller coaster from outstanding to Willy Taveras. It would be tough to use an argument saying he has gotten better along the way so lets not pay attention to his first month when the guy is all over the place from month to month.

I think the point is, you use stats when it fits your argument/philosophy. You'll use contradictory stats to prop up players you like, and dismiss them when it's a player you aren't as fond of. Yeah, you have been right many times, but frankly I'd say your record on prospects, as far as projecting them is about .500. I see you say things like "yeah but have you seen him play" a lot, often in regards to players I know for most of us it's impossible to see play. Guys at Billings or in the GCL. I think you have garnered such an inside track that you way over value Reds' prospects, especially one acquired via the draft in round #1. Your constant over valuing of Bailey over Cueto comes to mind. I think you have over-valued Alonso too.

I use stats all the time, especially when the jive with the scouting reports. I would love to see where I have dismissed stats for a player I 'am not fond of', which of course is silly because I don't dislike any single player in the system. As for Bailey/Cueto... I STILL think he will have a better CAREER than Cueto will and for that same reason is why I thought he was a better prospect when both were still prospects (FTR, so did EVERY major publication out there). As for me and overvaluing Alonso... BA rated him as the 15th best prospect in baseball. I rated him the 13th best. Did we both overrate him? Where do you think he should be rated? Who is ahead of him and who are the next 15 guys behind him?

I get why your mindset works this way, but you pass off your opinions like they are fact, and well, they ain't. I'd still kill to have a tenth of the access you have. Geography doesn't allow me to see any major or minor league games in person. I'm limited to the independent Central Baseball League. Not much in the way of futures for those guys.

I pass off my opinions like they are my opinions. I happen to believe pretty strongly in my opinions though. Sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, but I put a whole lot of time into player evaluation and because of that I get a pretty strong belief of why I think X player is whatever he is.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Benihana

Why would Blue Jays officials be talking up Dodgers prospects? And why would Dodgers scouts talk down their own prospects? That sure makes sense.

The Dodgers scouts didn't talk him down or up, they just have an opinion on him. They don't expect his bat to be much either. Defensively, the kid can glove it. Offensively, I would be surprised if he was much more than what Elvis Andrus is right now. To me, a weak hitting shortstop who profiles as a #7/8 hitter with a strong glove isn't someone who should be untouchable.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by M2

The methodology that has brought such hits as "Homer Bailey Is Ready" and "Drew Stubbs Has Figured Out How to Hit" and "Miguel Perez Is the Reds' Catcher of the Future."

Ah, yeah, Miguel Perez. Way to burn me by going back 4 years. I will be back in a few after I go grab some aloe vera to cool off these burns.

[Orenda]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Those professionals can talk up guys all they want. I have talked to Dodgers scouts and have seen the guy in person. He looks like he is trapped in a 14 year olds body, except unlike the 14 year old, he isn't going to grow out of it. If it were 1980, he could probably be a solid MLB SS. Its not though. Weighing in at 145 pounds isn't going to cut it in the major leagues.

IF he adds 10 lbs of lean muscle a year over the next 2-3 seasons he's now at 165-175 lbs. That is not an impossible feat to accomplish, especially for a pro athlete with access to trainers and maybe a nutritionist (plus he's in a good farm system who might hire people who have some knowledge about these things). He's not going to ever be a big guy and probably wouldn't have much power but I think that statement is pretty laughable.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

The Dodgers scouts didn't talk him down or up, they just have an opinion on him. They don't expect his bat to be much either. Defensively, the kid can glove it. Offensively, I would be surprised if he was much more than what Elvis Andrus is right now. To me, a weak hitting shortstop who profiles as a #7/8 hitter with a strong glove isn't someone who should be untouchable.

No one said he should be untouchable Doug. In fact, the subject of this thread is "Untouchables" and my first post demonstrates that he is not listed as one. Nor did anyone ever claim that he should be.

You are doing your usual sliding retreat, where you (I'm assuming unknowingly) change your arguments to defend something that wasn't even being debated.

[TRF]

I don't dislike any single player in the system.

You should, there is plenty to dislike. Castro leaps to mind for me. Stubbs too.

I know you use stats. My issue is you'll point to a stat like LD% like it's the end all. You used it numerous times with Stubbs and Mes to show they are doing well, when they weren't. Results matter. LD% with no context of what constitutes a LD (scored by official scorers) is not very valuable.

As for Alonso, classic case of over valuing. IMO no prospect should be ranked before his first season, whether that's a full or short season league. And he hadn't hit for crap in AA prior to breaking his hand. His development is likely set back a year. Maybe he's got the talent to start in AA next season with a promotion to AAA at the break. But unless he starts hitting LH pitching, he's Danny Dorn but with no position with the Reds available. That's going to decrease is value to the Reds assuming a best case scenario of Votto staying healthy. I was sure the Reds were going after Beckham in 2008. A completely inexplicable pick to my mind, but that's just my opinion.

But to answer your question, I wouldn't have ranked Alonso at the beginning of 2009. Not enough sample. Now once 2010 rolls around, there is no way I have Alonso ranked higher Yorman Rodriguez. Y is playing at a higher level and at a younger age than Alonso ever did, and so far playing very well. I thought the Alonso #1 ranking for the Reds was silly. Why is he #1 over Frazier, a comp pick that has out played him at every level so far. pheh.

[LoganBuck]

Can't you guys sword fight somewhere else? Seriously this has gotten stupid.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by TRF

But to answer your question, I wouldn't have ranked Alonso at the beginning of 2009. Not enough sample. Now once 2010 rolls around, there is no way I have Alonso ranked higher Yorman Rodriguez. Y is playing at a higher level and at a younger age than Alonso ever did, and so far playing very well. I thought the Alonso #1 ranking for the Reds was silly. Why is he #1 over Frazier, a comp pick that has out played him at every level so far. pheh.

Projection and the likelihood of reaching that projection is why he was #1 over Frazier. He projects to be a better major leaguer. Numbers only tell us so much. Even still, I like Alonso's numbers more than Fraziers. Much better plate discipline and the power has been about the same (.193 isoP in AA for Frazier this year at age 23 and a .183 in the FSL and SL for Alonso at age 22). Combine the two and Alonso looks to be like a guy who will be a better overall hitter and the positional downgrade is minimum.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by LoganBuck

Can't you guys sword fight somewhere else? Seriously this has gotten stupid.

I disagree. Once you look past our disagreements on the players themselves, when doug and i argue, usually a lot of info/opinions get floated.

besides, its fun.