Who is Redszone's #13 prospect? 2013

[camisadelgolf]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Lutz began playing baseball 8 years ago. Yes, that is quite a short time when all things are considered, but it wasn't a few years ago.

I often use the word 'few' in place of the word 'eight'. It's totally okay to do that.

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Lutz began playing baseball 8 years ago. Yes, that is quite a short time when all things are considered, but it wasn't a few years ago.

I'm starting to think that's overplayed too. Five years of professional instruction should probably be enough to make up for whatever he lost as a 14 year old. I think we'll have a better idea of where to rank him next year. A homer every 14 or 15 at bats is no small feat, but it's hard to take anything seriously in that Bakersfield park.

[mace]

Originally Posted by Superdude

I'm starting to think that's overplayed too. Five years of professional instruction should probably be enough to make up for whatever he lost as a 14 year old.

Disagree. Kids in this country, or say the Dominican Republic, grow up playing and/or watching the game. By age eight or nine, easily, many are mimicking the swings and throwing motions of professional players. The game is ingrained. We know the moves and plays and even a lot of the subtleties. If the process begins at 15 or 16, that kid is way, way, way behind. Comparatively, Lutz missed out on a decade of learning--of having the game in his head.

Now, it could be that his athletic ability has been able to catch him up this far, but that will be his ceiling. Until he hits that ceiling, though, I'm liking his upside.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mace

Disagree. Kids in this country, or say the Dominican Republic, grow up playing and/or watching the game. By age eight or nine, easily, many are mimicking the swings and throwing motions of professional players. The game is ingrained. We know the moves and plays and even a lot of the subtleties. If the process begins at 15 or 16, that kid is way, way, way behind. Comparatively, Lutz missed out on a decade of learning--of having the game in his head.

Now, it could be that his athletic ability has been able to catch him up this far, but that will be his ceiling. Until he hits that ceiling, though, I'm liking his upside.

I guess the question is this: He was working with professional level coaches almost from the beginning. He didn't have long formed habits to break out of. He was taught the correct way, or at least a correct way, to do things, almost from the beginning of his baseball life. So what is it that he didn't learn from ages 6-14 that is holding him back at this point? That is where this whole conversation gets lost on me. What is it that he didn't have then that is holding him back now that he might somehow get in the future? Yeah, I am sure his learning curve was much steeper at 16-19 than other guys that age. But now?

[mace]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I guess the question is this: He was working with professional level coaches almost from the beginning. He didn't have long formed habits to break out of. He was taught the correct way, or at least a correct way, to do things, almost from the beginning of his baseball life. So what is it that he didn't learn from ages 6-14 that is holding him back at this point? That is where this whole conversation gets lost on me. What is it that he didn't have then that is holding him back now that he might somehow get in the future? Yeah, I am sure his learning curve was much steeper at 16-19 than other guys that age. But now?

What didn't he have? Oh, maybe 3,000 practices, for starters. That may sound a bit overstated, and maybe it is, but think of a typical 16-year-old Dominican who gets signed at the age in which Lutz was trying to figure out which hand he throws with. That Dominican kid has conceivably been playing ball every day of his life since he was six. Let's round that low to 300 days a year for 10 years--3,000 days on the ballfield. Granted, American kids typically don't play that much. But if not, a lot of them certainly watch the game a whole lot. They're constantly picking things up.

Think of it this way. If you had a kid with aspirations to play in the big leagues, would you advise him not to pick up a ball or bat or watch a game until he was 16?

Now, imagine you're a coach. A 16-year-old comes to you for instruction, and he's never put on a baseball glove. He's never held a bat. Are you going to start by teaching him how to inside-out a fastball to the opposite field? By showing him how to guard the line in the late innings of a one-run game? Where to line up as a cutoff man? How to pick up that red dot on the slider?

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by mace

What didn't he have? Oh, maybe 3,000 practices, for starters. That may sound a bit overstated, and maybe it is, but think of a typical 16-year-old Dominican who gets signed at the age in which Lutz was trying to figure out which hand he throws with. That Dominican kid has conceivably been playing ball every day of his life since he was six. Let's round that low to 300 days a year for 10 years--3,000 days on the ballfield. Granted, American kids typically don't play that much. But if not, a lot of them certainly watch the game a whole lot. They're constantly picking things up.

Think of it this way. If you had a kid with aspirations to play in the big leagues, would you advise him not to pick up a ball or bat or watch a game until he was 16?

Now, imagine you're a coach. A 16-year-old comes to you for instruction, and he's never put on a baseball glove. He's never held a bat. Are you going to start by teaching him how to inside-out a fastball to the opposite field? By showing him how to guard the line in the late innings of a one-run game? Where to line up as a cutoff man? How to pick up that red dot on the slider?

I guess I'd buy it more if he was showing rapid fire improvements to get where he's at. His overall skillset has remained pretty similar for the last three years or so, albeit while moving up the ladder.

[dougdirt]

That didn't really answer the question though. What is it that Lutz isn't good at right now, things that are holding him back, that are a direct result of him beginning to play baseball at age 15?

[JayBruceFan]

Refer to Lutz's cycle with the Dragons for an exhibition of his athletic ability

[marcshoe]

I went with Rogers simply because I'm not sure I really believe in the other contenders at this point. I don't find a lot to dislike about Rogers. Not a star-in-waiting, but solid. I may vote for Lutz soon (if he's still on the board) because of his potential, but I'm afraid the idea of him is greater than the reality. I'd love to be proven wrong.

edit--just looked at the vote totals, and it looks like Lutz will get this spot, unless another single candidate gains momentum. That's okay; the potential is there.

[mace]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

That didn't really answer the question though. What is it that Lutz isn't good at right now, things that are holding him back, that are a direct result of him beginning to play baseball at age 15?

I don't know . . . maybe hitting and fielding? I suspect that an additional 10 years of muscle memory--putting the bat on the ball, chasing down flies, all the things that constitute playing the game--would serve him well in those areas. Every study I've ever read suggests that there's no substitute for repetition. I don't think Pete Rose would be eager to give back those tens of thousands of swings he took in front of the mirror when he was a kid. I doubt that Mike Piazza believes he wasted his childhood in his backyard batting cage. I'm guessing that Larry Bird took a few helpful jump shots between the ages of eight and fifteen.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by mace

I don't know . . . maybe hitting and fielding? I suspect that an additional 10 years of muscle memory--putting the bat on the ball, chasing down flies, all the things that constitute playing the game--would serve him well in those areas. Every study I've ever read suggests that there's no substitute for repetition. I don't think Pete Rose would be eager to give back those tens of thousands of swings he took in front of the mirror when he was a kid. I doubt that Mike Piazza believes he wasted his childhood in his backyard batting cage. I'm guessing that Larry Bird took a few helpful jump shots between the ages of eight and fifteen.

Does Lutz have an inconsistent swing? If not, this point holds zero amount of water.

[dougdirt]

Also, just to point it out, Lutz wasn't in John Sickels Reds Top 20. http://www.minorleagueball.com/2013/...pects-for-2013

[Red Swagger]

What is the Chad Rogers love all about? He is nowhere on ANY Top 20 prospect lists, let alone in the Top 15 in the organization. With a good year in 2013, then we can start talking about it

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Red Swagger

What is the Chad Rogers love all about? He is nowhere on ANY Top 20 prospect lists, let alone in the Top 15 in the organization. With a good year in 2013, then we can start talking about it

He was on My Top 20 prospect list. He was in my Top 15.

He has outstanding control of his fastball. As a starter, it is slightly-above average. As a reliever, it is above-average. He has an outstanding slider. He is a groundball machine. He has shown he has the stamina to start, though he will need to work with a third pitch better to remain as a starter, but at least it is a change up rather than a breaking ball.

He has shown success, even in a small sample size, in AA. He showed good success in the California League as a pitcher.

Ultimately, for me, it comes down to that he is an incredibly safe bet to be a solid Major League contributor and has some actual upside to be more than just solid. At this point on the list, his sureness is pretty nice.

Watch him pitch. He pounds the strikezone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-0tzXnShlc

[marcshoe]

Rogers was on the list of Spring Training invites released today, fwiw.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?...tnerId=rss_cin