Who is Redszone's #1 prospect?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

I agree more guys carry a 19-20% LD than do not. However, since 2002, there are no fewer than 30-40 regulars that have carried at least 20%. Chipper Jones has a 22.7% in that time. Manny is over 22%. In a smaller period of time, Joe Mauer is 23.5%. It's not easy, but there are a decent amount of players that have done it.

Possible of course. To be expected for anyone who hasn't done it at the MLB level for several years already though is a bit of a reach.

Those who continue to ignore the lunacy that Francisco put up in AAA and Cincinnati in the BABIP department are going to be very confused and simply don't get that math behind a players stats.

Originally Posted by mace

Dominican: 173 PA, 161 AB, 58 H, 12 HR, 107 TB, 12 BB, 37 RBI
Louisville: 99 PA, 92 AB, 33 H, 5 HR, 55 TB, 4 BB, 19 RBI
Cincinnati: 25 PA, 21 AB, 9 H, 1 HR, 13 TB, 3 BB, 7 RBI

Totals: 297 PA, 274 AB, 100 H, 18 HR, 175 TB, 19 BB, 63 RBI

His BABIP combined at those three stops is .423. Its simply unsustainable. Move it to something like .320, which is still likely unreasonably high and he would have hit something to the tune of .292/.350/.570. Great line. But the DWL saw insane numbers across the entire league last year in terms of power. His line in just AAA/MLB with a .320 BABIP is likely more accurate at .274/.322/.504. What if he is just a normal .300 BABIP guy? Then we are looking at something like .260/.310/.490. The kid has lots of power, but his offensive game must be improved still, and by quite a bit. Like noted, he has shown some good signs, but over the long haul we haven't seen it yet.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Possible of course. To be expected for anyone who hasn't done it at the MLB level for several years already though is a bit of a reach.

Those who continue to ignore the lunacy that Francisco put up in AAA and Cincinnati in the BABIP department are going to be very confused and simply don't get that math behind a players stats.


His BABIP combined at those three stops is .423. Its simply unsustainable. Move it to something like .320, which is still likely unreasonably high and he would have hit something to the tune of .292/.350/.570. Great line. But the DWL saw insane numbers across the entire league last year in terms of power. His line in just AAA/MLB with a .320 BABIP is likely more accurate at .274/.322/.504. What if he is just a normal .300 BABIP guy? Then we are looking at something like .260/.310/.490. The kid has lots of power, but his offensive game must be improved still, and by quite a bit. Like noted, he has shown some good signs, but over the long haul we haven't seen it yet.

Oh I definitely agree it's unsustainable. And I was not responding as trying to indicate that I think Francisco will be able to pull off an exceptionally high BABIP. I was merely responding to the Pujols example, for as good as he is, he would not be the threshold for BABIP sustainability if we're looking at high end.

You are absolutely correct: for any player that does not get a lot of infield hits, unless you carry a very, very high LD%, it's not realistic to expect much more than a .310-.325 BABIP.

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Kc61

It's a question of how you view these things. Many of these guys, like Francisco, are quite young.

If you have a fairly static view of things - a guy's stats are a guy's stats and will likely always be his stats - then you probably vote for Frazier or Leake. They have the polish, perhaps the more consistent numbers with fewer negatives.

If you take a more dynamic view - take a young player like Francisco, look at his tremendous ability and factor in his age, also factor in what he showed at AAA and on the Reds and assume some growth - then you'd vote for him, as I will.

I don't think these 2 categories are mutually exclusive. However if you insist then I'd suggest there is a 3rd view, one that combines all of the above. How about Dynatic? The problem with the view of the 2nd category IMO is that you cannot assume a move forward when there are glaring difficiencies. Regardless if they were uncovered at higher levels or not they still remain. Often times a player will look completely fine with no glaring issues until someone figures out what may work, tries it, that then becomes his obvious weakness. Juan proved one thing in 2009, that he can hit at the AA level consistently. His small samples at the next 2 stops have little bearing on the facts. Just as Chris Dickersons' late season surge in '08 didn't give us a clear indication of what to expect moving forward on him, and many others before him as well. History shows that what Juan has done in the minors isn't gonna cut it moving forward. And additionally he must make far greater strides to maintain the numbers. I think we should not only not assume a forward growth but expect a significant dropoff (assuming we expected him to stick at the MLB level).

I think most of RZ would love to be able to believe we could depend on Francisco to do something that no one has ever done. That is, hit well enough to stick at the major league level with little to maybe even no improvement in his historically low K% and BB% totals. He certainly is a bad ball hitter and even those guys (Corey Patterson) have some good streaks in baseball. I think Juan knows deep down he needs to tighten that area of his game up (his recent MLB approach as proof) and if he ever has a legit shot at doing it I don't believe it will be at the major league level.

In a nutshell he's young enough and talented enough to be considered the #1 prospect but when adding in all the other stuff in his and others game his odds are lesser therefore he's in my mind not #1, #2 or #3 currently but he has definitely shown enough to have made a significant jump from last years poll.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by mace

We're saddled here with painfully small samples, so I thought I'd go ahead and combine Francisco's totals from last winter's Dominican League and this year's stops at Louisville and Cincinnati, his three highest levels.

Dominican: 173 PA, 161 AB, 58 H, 12 HR, 107 TB, 12 BB, 37 RBI
Louisville: 99 PA, 92 AB, 33 H, 5 HR, 55 TB, 4 BB, 19 RBI
Cincinnati: 25 PA, 21 AB, 9 H, 1 HR, 13 TB, 3 BB, 7 RBI

Totals: 297 PA, 274 AB, 100 H, 18 HR, 175 TB, 19 BB, 63 RBI

That's a slash line of 365/401/639. An OPS of 1.040, with 63 RBIs, in essentially half a full season. Even if he were to tank over the other half of that season--which is in direct contrast to the pattern he's presenting--it would be a heckuva line for a kid of 22.

I'm not saying he's Pujols or Fielder. I'm just saying there's a whole lot to like. Alonso may well prove to have a better package, but to this point, no other hitter in the system has shown me as much as Francisco.

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but you left out his K numbers, which are abornomally high. And the sample size is quite small. I think you have to at least throw in the AA numbers in the mix too.

The power is legit...I don't think anyone on RZ or anywhere else would dispute the immense power that JF has.

At 22, Wily Mo hit 26 HRs in the MAJORS and OPS'ed .843 in 336 ABs. Problem was, he struck out 108 times. That's nearly a 33% K rate. Very similiar to some of the rates JF has put up.

Wily Mo had actually proven more at 22 than JF has at this point. I will say that JF is a better defender...but what's to be excited about here? JF has to cut down on the strikeouts, has to walk more and get on base.

I'm not quite understanding the love here. I would try to package this guy as soon as possible and sell high. Potential is great, but if he could land the Reds a player that can help out now, I'd trade him.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

Not sure if it was intentional or not, but you left out his K numbers, which are abornomally high.

.

Not true for a power hitter. Oops, should stick to the current poll.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Not true for a power hitter. Oops, should stick to the current poll.

Strikeouts always count, even for power hitters. Strikeouts matter for everyone because they influence everything else, including home runs (because of balls put in play), batting average and on base percentage (because of balls put in play and BABIP) and slugging percentage. I still don't believe Francisco has a strikeout problem though. He has a strikeout/walk problem. The two rates have to get closer to one another, be it by cutting a few more strikeouts or adding a few more walks. Alone, neither is an issue. Together they are.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Strikeouts always count, even for power hitters. Strikeouts matter for everyone because they influence everything else, including home runs (because of balls put in play), batting average and on base percentage (because of balls put in play and BABIP) and slugging percentage. I still don't believe Francisco has a strikeout problem though. He has a strikeout/walk problem. The two rates have to get closer to one another, be it by cutting a few more strikeouts or adding a few more walks. Alone, neither is an issue. Together they are.

Strikeouts count, but you expect more from a power hitter. A slap hitter can fan 100 times and it's a disaster. A power man fans 100 times and it is modest by today's standards.

And I disagree with all the talk about K/BB ratios. I think Ks and BBs are important -- but independent of each other. A good strikeout number doesn't justify too few walks. A good walk number doesn't justify too many strikeouts.

JF has no strikeout problem for a hitter of his type. He does have a walk problem. He needs to walk more. I saw signs late in the season that he can overcome that.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Strikeouts count, but you expect more from a power hitter. A slap hitter can fan 100 times and it's a disaster. A power man fans 100 times and it is modest by today's standards.

I don't believe JF has a strikeout problem at all. And I disagree with all the talk about K/BB ratios. I think Ks and BBs are important -- but independent of each other.

JF has no strikeout problem for a hitter of his type. He does have a walk problem. He needs to walk more. I saw signs late in the season that he can overcome that.

Except you are incorrect that his walk rate is a problem. Its only a problem because of his strikeouts. If he struck out 10% of the time, his 4% walk rate would be fine. Likewise, his 20% strikeout rate isn't a problem by itself, because if he had a 7%+ walk rate he could be just fine. His 20% strikeout rate is a problem because of his 4% walk rate. Guys simply can't get on base enough with such a discrepancy between the two rates. Alone they aren't problems. together though, they are because they make it too difficult for a player to post a .330 OBP, much less something higher.

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Except you are incorrect that his walk rate is a problem. Its only a problem because of his strikeouts. If he struck out 10% of the time, his 4% walk rate would be fine. Likewise, his 20% strikeout rate isn't a problem by itself, because if he had a 7%+ walk rate he could be just fine. His 20% strikeout rate is a problem because of his 4% walk rate. Guys simply can't get on base enough with such a discrepancy between the two rates. Alone they aren't problems. together though, they are because they make it too difficult for a player to post a .330 OBP, much less something higher.

Sorry, I don't see it.

If you strikeout too much, it's bad.
If you walk too little, it's bad.

You can compensate for these tendencies in several ways. But the two do not correlate in my view.

A guy can fan 200 times. That's bad. He can compensate several ways. He can compensate by hitting 70 homers. He can compensate by batting .350. He can compensate by walks. But it doesn't have to be by walks.

A guy can walk at a very low rate, like Francisco. He can compensate by a very high batting average. By a slew of extra base hits. A low strikeout rate helps, but it is not necessary if other good things happen.

Walks and strikeouts are important. But they are not, IMO, strictly related.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Sorry, I don't see it.

If you strikeout too much, it's bad.
If you walk too little, it's bad.

You can compensate for these tendencies in several ways. But the two do not correlate in my view.

A guy can fan 200 times. That's bad. He can compensate several ways. He can compensate by hitting 70 homers. He can compensate by batting .350. He can compensate by walks. But it doesn't have to be by walks.

A guy can walk at a very low rate, like Francisco. He can compensate by a very high batting average. By a slew of extra base hits. A low strikeout rate helps, but it is not necessary if other good things happen.

Walks and strikeouts are important. But they are not, IMO, strictly related.

You're missing Doug's point.

Individually, if you have a low walk rate, but don't strike out a lot, you will have a higher BA because you'll have more balls in play (and therefore more hits). If you have high strikeout rate, but compensate with walks, your lower BA will be made up with a higher isolated discipline.

Together, though, if you're not putting the ball in play and you don't walk much, you're going to have a very bad OBP. A 4:1 K:BB ratio is very, very bad. It's enough to destroy in OBP any significant slugging a player is able to put up.

His point is you can survive one or the other, but you can't survive both.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Kc61

Sorry, I don't see it.

If you strikeout too much, it's bad.
If you walk too little, it's bad.

You can compensate for these tendencies in several ways. But the two do not correlate in my view.

A guy can fan 200 times. That's bad. He can compensate several ways. He can compensate by hitting 70 homers. He can compensate by batting .350. He can compensate by walks. But it doesn't have to be by walks.

A guy can walk at a very low rate, like Francisco. He can compensate by a very high batting average. By a slew of extra base hits. A low strikeout rate helps, but it is not necessary if other good things happen.

Walks and strikeouts are important. But they are not, IMO, strictly related.

Thats the problem, the statistical probability of hitting .350 with 200 strikeouts in a season with 700 plate appearances is astronomical. If that player had 650 plate appearances AND hit 50 HR's with 100 walks to go along with those 200 strikeouts they would still have to have a BABIP of .468 to hit .350. Thats over 50 points higher than anyone in the entire history has ever had over a full season. Its math. It works in baseball extremely well.

Guys don't hit for a high average with lots of strikeouts on a regular basis. Its just not possible because of the lack of balls in play and BABIP working. I ran the math. Here are the results for you to see how the two relate to each other.

Strikeout rate = 20% and Walk rate = 4%
PA	AB	H	HR	BB	K	SF	SH	AVG	BABIP	OBP
650	609	165	25	26	130	8	2	.271	.303	.295
650	609	168	27	26	130	8	2	.276	.307	.299
650	609	171	29	26	130	8	2	.281	.310	.304
650	609	173	31	26	130	8	2	.284	.311	.307
650	609	175	33	26	130	8	2	.287	.313	.310
650	609	177	35	26	130	8	2	.291	.314	.313
650	609	179	37	26	130	8	2	.294	.316	.316
650	609	181	39	26	130	8	2	.297	.317	.319
650	609	183	41	26	130	8	2	.300	.318	.323

Strikeout rate = 10% and Walk rate = 4%
PA	AB	H	HR	BB	K	SF	SH	AVG	BABIP	OBP
650	609	183	25	26	65	8	2	.300	.300	.323
650	609	185	27	26	65	8	2	.304	.301	.326
650	609	188	29	26	65	8	2	.309	.304	.330
650	609	191	31	26	65	8	2	.314	.307	.335
650	609	194	33	26	65	8	2	.319	.310	.340
650	609	197	35	26	65	8	2	.323	.313	.344
650	609	200	37	26	65	8	2	.328	.317	.349
650	609	203	39	26	65	8	2	.333	.320	.353
650	609	206	41	26	65	8	2	.338	.323	.358

Strikeout rate = 20% and Walk rate = 7%
PA	AB	H	HR	BB	K	SF	SH	AVG	BABIP	OBP
650	589	158	25	46	130	8	2	.268	.301	.315
650	589	161	27	46	130	8	2	.273	.305	.319
650	589	164	29	46	130	8	2	.278	.308	.324
650	589	166	31	46	130	8	2	.282	.310	.327
650	589	169	33	46	130	8	2	.287	.313	.332
650	589	172	35	46	130	8	2	.292	.317	.336
650	589	174	37	46	130	8	2	.295	.319	.340
650	589	177	39	46	130	8	2	.301	.322	.344
650	589	179	41	46	130	8	2	.304	.324	.347

It just adds up. The two rates are directly correlated to the AVG and OBP results (along with HR power).

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

You're missing Doug's point.

Individually, if you have a low walk rate, but don't strike out a lot, you will have a higher BA because you'll have more balls in play (and therefore more hits). If you have high strikeout rate, but compensate with walks, your lower BA will be made up with a higher isolated discipline.

Together, though, if you're not putting the ball in play and you don't walk much, you're going to have a very bad OBP. A 4:1 K:BB ratio is very, very bad. It's enough to destroy in OBP any significant slugging a player is able to put up.

His point is you can survive one or the other, but you can't survive both.

I get Doug's point. I just don't see the ratio of Ks to BBs as being the issue. The issue is how you compensate - if you can - for a deficiency in either area.

If you walk too little, or strike out too much, there are a number of ways to compensate.

Yes -- if your walks are very low and your Ks are very high, it's a tough situation. But most cases aren't that extreme, just someplace in between.

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by Kc61

I get Doug's point. I just don't see the ratio of Ks to BBs as being the issue. The issue is how you compensate - if you can - for a deficiency in either area.

If you walk too little, or strike out too much, there are a number of ways to compensate.

Yes -- if your walks are very low and your Ks are very high, it's a tough situation. But most cases aren't that extreme, just someplace in between.

But Francisco's case IS that extreme. And therein lies the problem. His minor league rate THIS season was worse than any K:BB rate of any regular major league player. While he does possess some power, he does not have enough of anything else to compensate for that extreme a rate (few do, in fact).

[Mario-Rijo]

Originally Posted by Brutus the Pimp

But Francisco's case IS that extreme. And therein lies the problem. His minor league rate THIS season was worse than any K:BB rate of any regular major league player. While he does possess some power, he does not have enough of anything else to compensate for that extreme a rate (few do, in fact).

His assumption (as an example) is that he is as gifted as Vlad (or somewhere in that realm) at turning pitches that he should ground out to SS into hits. That combined with his very good (but not great when he isn't swinging from the heels) power will compensate. At least that is how I read what his argument is and has been. If I am wrong then I apologize to KC61 and lollipopcurve as that is how I have taken their arguments on the subject. I disagree that he is capable of such a thing. I can see how they get there but as Doug pointed Juan would have to be extremly fortunate to do that and no one has ever been that fortunate or even remotely close. Certainly if he wants to be a major leaguer he could put in the work to get there perhaps but at his current rate of improvement or IMO lack thereof I don't see the horizon for him.

PHP Code:

Extended Statistics 
Year Age       Tm      PA AB  ISOP BB%    K%  BABIP GB% LD%  wOBA 
2006 19  Rk GCL Reds  190 182 .127 3.2%  18.4% .333 48% 14%  .306 
2007 20   A Dayton    562 534 .195 4.1%  28.6% .336 51% 13%  .319 
2008 21  A+ Sarasota  541 516 .219 3.5%  22.7% .324 44% 21%  .331 
2009 22  AA Carolina  464 437 .220 4.3%  19.6% .312 44% 22%  .342 
2009 22 AAA Louisville 99 92  .239 4.0%  24.2% .444 48% 17%  .406 
2009 22 MLB Cincinnati 25 21  .190 12.0% 28.0% .615 64% 14%  .496 


Those numbers don't indicate any real significant advancements too me. He tends to fluctuate between 3-4.5% BB rate and a 18-30% K rate. I say fluctuate because it's no gradual progression at least not forward.

[GOYA]

The one thing that Cisco has going for him that doesn't show up in stats is that he crushes balls. He may hit a grounder that would be an out for Janish (for example) but his is a hit because it gets through the infield much faster. He makes contact that looks like a popfly and it ends up being a HR. The ones that get out or at least over an OF's head will increase power numbers but those laser beam singles don't. IMO, that's why he has and will have a higher than normal BABIP. When he puts a ball in play, it is harder for the defense to get to it.

It's not likely that anyone can maintain a BABIP like Cisco's at the Bats and Reds last season but he really doesn't need to to be productive. If he did maintain it, he's a first ballot Hall of Famer.

When Cisco got to Louisville he was at a pitcher's mercy if that pitcher could put a breaking ball down and in on him. When he left Louisville, he wasn't having trouble with that pitch. THAT is very telling. He's a kid with remarkable offensive tools that is learning how to put those tools to good use. And he's almost there. And he's my #2 pick.