Testing our rankings

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I think that Frazier/Alonso can be more valuable than a #5 starter in the major leagues today. Alonso, I feel could be a league average, perhaps slightly below first baseman in the majors right now. Frazier, if put at 3B/LF I feel would be at the very least league average right now. I do think that Maloney can be a #5 today. I just think that Alonso and Frazier are more ready than that.

Wow. I have no words for this.

(Well, maybe I do.)

Alonso? League average? Seriously? If you take his numbers from AA and extrapolate them to 150 games, they're still well below 1B averages.

Frazier, I might see. Maybe.

But Maloney has already played at the big league level. And done alright.

Same with Francisco.

Proximity = Closest to the majors

There's no way either Frazier or Alonso is close to Maloney nor Francisco, who, oddly enough, doesn't even make your list. (Talk about a blind spot!)

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Wow. I have no words for this.

(Well, maybe I do.)

Alonso? League average? Seriously? If you take his numbers from AA and extrapolate them to 150 games, they're still well below 1B averages.

Frazier, I might see. Maybe.

But Maloney has already played at the big league level. And done alright.

Same with Francisco.

Proximity = Closest to the majors

There's no way either Frazier or Alonso is close to Maloney nor Francisco, who, oddly enough, doesn't even make your list. (Talk about a blind spot!)

Yes, Alonso league average. The problem with extrapolating his numbers is that it doesn't include any 'hot/cold streaks' and that it also counts where he had a small sample to work with, had 8 weeks in the middle of that where he didn't play because of the injury and that when he came back, he hit .328/.413/.531 with 10 walks and 11 strikeouts between AA/AAA (playoffs included) upon his return from his injury after a slow start to AA pre injury.

To me, proximity is about who would stick long term first, not who has been there. Francisco had his ups and downs, but I don't believe he is ready to play every day in the major leagues at all right now. The only thing Francisco can do right now for a major league team is hit for power. He can't play defense. He can't have an OBP thats going to be good enough to start for a team that actually knows the value of OBP. Maloney I am a bit more confident in, but I want to see a little more. He had 3 good starts to end the year, but he was roughed up pretty good in the 3 starts before that too.

Its not a blind spot, its about having a very different look on things than you do.

[Scrap Irony]

You're arguing small sample size, then, in the next sentence, you take an even smaller sample size as proof Alonso's ready?

And, by any language I know, proximity means closest. Since both Maloney and Francisco have already played in Cincinnati, I cannot grasp whatever logic you're using, other than purposely bagging on two guys who've already been in the big league.

Look, I can see how you'd think Alonso is a better prospect. He's a first round pick who's been... well, adequate so far. He has a good eye at the plate and the potential for power as he plays more. I also think Francisco could struggle in both AAA and the majors due to his BB/K issues.

But he's undoubtedly had the better year and is at least four months closer to the majors than is Yonder.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

You're arguing small sample size, then, in the next sentence, you take an even smaller sample size as proof Alonso's ready?

Its not proof that he is ready, just proof that guys have both hot and cold spells and in small samples like Alonso had it doesn't mean much because ones true skill level isn't going to show up. My argument is that the peripherals/skillset that Alonso has today, would make him roughly a league average first base bat. He walks as often as he strikes out and has some good pop in his bat today.

And, by any language I know, proximity means closest. Since both Maloney and Francisco have already played in Cincinnati, I cannot grasp whatever logic you're using, other than purposely bagging on two guys who've already been in the big league.

Proximity to starting on a smart team is different than proximity of stepping on the field. I used the first one. You used the second one. They are two entirely different things though. I don't care that Francisco has played in the majors yet. That doesn't mean he is ready to start and that is what I care about.

Look, I can see how you'd think Alonso is a better prospect. He's a first round pick who's been... well, adequate so far. He has a good eye at the plate and the potential for power as he plays more. I also think Francisco could struggle in both AAA and the majors due to his BB/K issues.

But he's undoubtedly had the better year and is at least four months closer to the majors than is Yonder.

Undoubtedly the better year? Hmmm... I see that Alonso hit .300/.379/.482 between Sarasota and Carolina this season, good for an .861 OPS while I see that Francisco hit .300/.337/.521 for an .858 OPS. There is certainly a whole lot of doubt that an .858 OPS is better than an .862 OPS, especially when one looks at how one went about reaching each. Because of the struggles that even you see with Francisco's game I simply can't understand how you believe he is at least 4 months closer than Alonso is.

[REDblooded]

Not really sure why you'd argue so vehemently on the topic of Francisco vs. Alonso... To be honest, there's not much of a difference between the two as far as current readiness... However, you should look at the recent actions of the organization to give you an idea of which they feel is closer in proximity... Francisco gets blocked by the trade for Rolen. Votto has been mentioned in trade rumors with nobody blocking Alonso at first if such a move were made...

[bucksfan2]

Doug, I see your point about proximity being the player that the closest to sticking as a big leaguer. I think these rankings were done to take a lot of subjectivity out of the equation. For me the issue became that although Alonso has been nice, he hasn't done anything to impress. He hasn't done anything to warrant being ranked the #1 prospect in the system except for being drafted in the 1st round. Again there is nothing wrong with this ranking based upon scouting, but when you look at different aspects of the game, Alonso is less impressive.

As for Francisco I think is case is interesting. I had always thought he was pretty far away and should have been used more as trade bait than anything. But when the Reds called him up in Sept, there was a reason they did so. There was a reason Francisco got a cup of coffee but they kept Alonso in the minors. I don't know what that reason was, but to me it showed that the Reds have some faith in Francisco.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Doug, I see your point about proximity being the player that the closest to sticking as a big leaguer. I think these rankings were done to take a lot of subjectivity out of the equation. For me the issue became that although Alonso has been nice, he hasn't done anything to impress. He hasn't done anything to warrant being ranked the #1 prospect in the system except for being drafted in the 1st round. Again there is nothing wrong with this ranking based upon scouting, but when you look at different aspects of the game, Alonso is less impressive.

I think this is just flat out incorrect. Scouting says Alonso is going to be a .900 OPS hitter. His peripherals say he is going to be at least an .875 OPS hitter if he keeps them up. You can say that they aren't impressive, but a guy with power who walks more than 12% of the time and strikes out less than 14% of the time? Yeah, that is and always will be impressive. I am not sure what exactly would impress you.... but those things impress me a whole lot.

As for Francisco I think is case is interesting. I had always thought he was pretty far away and should have been used more as trade bait than anything. But when the Reds called him up in Sept, there was a reason they did so. There was a reason Francisco got a cup of coffee but they kept Alonso in the minors. I don't know what that reason was, but to me it showed that the Reds have some faith in Francisco.

Francisco was rewarded for what the Reds saw as a great season (they simply don't care about OBP). I am sure the Reds have faith in Francisco. Heck, even I have some faith in Francisco. There just is no way that he is either 1, a better prospect than Alonso or 2, is closer to being an every day starter on a smart major league team.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Its not proof that he is ready, just proof that guys have both hot and cold spells and in small samples like Alonso had it doesn't mean much because ones true skill level isn't going to show up.

So, you're arguing that it's not his numbers that matter, but his skillset? And that that skillset hasn't emerged in his numbers because he's been injured? So, if none of his numbers matter, why use numbers at all?

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Proximity to starting on a smart team is different than proximity of stepping on the field. I used the first one. You used the second one. They are two entirely different things though. I don't care that Francisco has played in the majors yet. That doesn't mean he is ready to start and that is what I care about.

Was anything ever said about starting? Or a smart team? Nope. Obviously, the Reds value Francisco and consider him closer the majors, as he played in the major leagues already. Perverted logic aside, there's no reason to place Alonso anywhere in an argument about proximity, especially considering his lack of ABs this year and his poor AFL.

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Undoubtedly the better year? Hmmm... I see that Alonso hit .300/.379/.482 between Sarasota and Carolina this season, good for an .861 OPS while I see that Francisco hit .300/.337/.521 for an .858 OPS. There is certainly a whole lot of doubt that an .858 OPS is better than an .862 OPS, especially when one looks at how one went about reaching each. Because of the struggles that even you see with Francisco's game I simply can't understand how you believe he is at least 4 months closer than Alonso is.

He's four months closer because he played in Cincinnati last season. September. (It was in all the papers.) While there, Francisco hit 429 with a 1.139 OPS. Sure, it was in 25 ABs. Still, it was 25 ABs in the major leagues and he hit fairly well.

That alone would indicate a better year for me, but couple that with Alonso's injury, his weak power numbers and his position, and the question becomes a slam dunk.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

So, you're arguing that it's not his numbers that matter, but his skillset? And that that skillset hasn't emerged in his numbers because he's been injured? So, if none of his numbers matter, why use numbers at all?

Skillsets often show up in the numbers. Sometimes they don't always come through though, especially in small sample sizes. Even still with Alono's small sample size, his body of work had him with an .861 OPS this year with nearly as many walks as strikeouts. Thats a pretty darn good season no matter how you want to slice it, especially considering that most of it took place in the FSL. The more numbers you have the more that they mean, but numbers are just a part of the puzzle. How much you use them depends on the players skillset.

Was anything ever said about starting? Or a smart team? Nope. Obviously, the Reds value Francisco and consider him closer the majors, as he played in the major leagues already. Perverted logic aside, there's no reason to place Alonso anywhere in an argument about proximity, especially considering his lack of ABs this year and his poor AFL.

The word used was proximity. I took that to ask the proximity of starting on a team that understands the value of a baseball player. Simply because someone is willing to let a guy start all season with a .310 OBP doesn't mean that most other teams would. You can take proximity to mean 'step on the field', I will take it as 'step on the field as a starter and perform to a level that is acceptable of a starter'. I don't care how soon a team puts a guy there, I care about how soon the guy can perform at a level high enough to help the team. Alonso is closer to that than Francisco is.

He's four months closer because he played in Cincinnati last season. September. (It was in all the papers.) While there, Francisco hit 429 with a 1.139 OPS. Sure, it was in 25 ABs. Still, it was 25 ABs in the major leagues and he hit fairly well.

I am going to ignore any and all arguments about stats when talking about 25 at bats. And again, I don't care about when a guy stepped onto the field. I care about how soon a guy can perform at a league average or better level for a full season. You simply can't convince me, or most people, that Francisco is 4 months closer to doing that than Alonso is.

That alone would indicate a better year for me, but couple that with Alonso's injury, his weak power numbers and his position, and the question becomes a slam dunk.

Alonso's weak power numbers? He had a .182 isolated power this season, most of which was spent in the Florida State League. As for the position.... Francisco is a dude without one currently. He made EE look like he didn't have an error problem at 3B this year and is learning left field as we speak, a position he has all of 5 starts at in his entire career. I don't believe for a second that gives him some sort of bonus over Alonso.

[Mario-Rijo]

Just for clarification when I think of proximity I think closest to staying in the majors. Which is why I didn't put Francisco high on proximity either. For example once upon a time (2007) Homer Bailey made it to the show and at the same time Cueto was in High A Sarasota and indeed closer to staying in the Majors. IIRC Homer was handling the minors every bit as good as Francisco has at that point maybe even better. So I'd agree with Doug proximity is closest to staying in the big leagues in whatever role but since we are discussing top prospects that probably means starting.

One caveat though I did explain Maloney as a 1 in proximity in my next hypothetical grouping but that is because I think he has a shot at sticking at this point, how good I''m not sure but surely closer than anyone he'd be grouped with at that juncture.

[mace]

To weigh and balance all the criteria can be, as we've found out, dizzying. I like to use a one-test method that, at least for me, cuts through all that: Which guy would you least like to lose?