Baseball Prospectus Top 101 prospects - and a shocker

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by TheNext44

One question for the prospect experts:

Has there ever been a prospect that has been on nearly everyone else's top 50 list, that did not even make another's top 100 list? Just curious, and if so, would love to see who it was.

I like that question. When was the last time a prospect was in the same position as Alonso? A top prospect whose stock falls but is still ranked on every ranking except one.

I can understand that Goldstein likes Smoak more and I can understand if Alonso slips in a ranking. But to slip completely off the ranking (of 101 prospects) altogether?? Maybe they should start doing drug testing of baseball evaluators cuz I think Goldstein might have some really good stuff.

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

The biggest difference in opinions I've had around here is that most people liked the Scott Rolen for Zach Stewart trade. It was pretty overwhelmingly in favor of the trade. That the consensus here is usually correct, it's looks like I'll be wrong about that one. I just hope no one tries to use the "he's brought a veteran presence to the club argument" as proof, if the REDS turn out to win 90 games this year.

I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by redsfandan

I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

That's my perception of it as well. The lunatic fringe insisted Rolen was worthless, while Stewart was a shoo-in as a perennial All-Star, but I think cooler heads have come back to earth on those subjects. (Though I don't read SunDeck all that often, and Rolen's most strident critics were located in that sub-forum.)

[TRF]

Originally Posted by redsfandan

I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

I was against that particular upgrade, as I thought Frazier could handle the job starting this year. It might have been rough for a season, but I'd have signed a 3B, maybe FeLo for offense or if I wanted to have someone mentor Frazier, find a glove for 3B to back him up.

Can you imagine a AAA rotation of Wood, Chapman, Leake, Stewart and Klinker? Leake probaly starts at AA, but he'd reach AAA soon enough.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by TRF

Can you imagine a AAA rotation of Wood, Chapman, Leake, Stewart and Klinker? Leake probaly starts at AA, but he'd reach AAA soon enough.

I am hoping for something just like that (sans Stewart of course). Going to make for an expensive travel budget to Louisville this season.

[REDblooded]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

I am hoping for something just like that (sans Stewart of course). Going to make for an expensive travel budget to Louisville this season.

I'll just make sure I catch a series or two here in Indianapolis... Will be nice to see them going against Pedro Alvarez...

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by redsfandan

I thought most people liked the upgrade at 3rd but didn't like the price that the Reds paid (Stewart) to get that upgrade.

I didn't want to get into the specifics, but yes.

No one ever argued against the upgrade at 3rd. It was always about the price that was paid to make the upgrade, whether or not you liked the trade.

Wasn't it 17% against the trade versus 83% for the trade?

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

(Though I don't read SunDeck all that often, and Rolen's most strident critics were located in that sub-forum.)

Let's not put our noses in the air now.

[Scrap Irony]

Sub-forum, as in not the main forum of RedsZone. Sun Deck, Game Threads, The Tavern, and The Minors, et al., are all sub-forums of the ORG.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by Scrap Irony

Sub-forum, as in not the main forum of RedsZone. Sun Deck, Game Threads, The Tavern, and The Minors, et al., are all sub-forums of the ORG.

Sorry. I'll remove that chip off my shoulder now.

[redsfandan]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

I didn't want to get into the specifics, but yes.

No one ever argued against the upgrade at 3rd. It was always about the price that was paid to make the upgrade, whether or not you liked the trade.

Wasn't it 17% against the trade versus 83% for the trade?

Beats me. I don't remember if there was an actual poll although there probably was one. Hopefully the trade works out and Rolen can stay healthy.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by redsfandan

Beats me. I don't remember if there was an actual poll although there probably was one. Hopefully the trade works out and Rolen can stay healthy.

Yes.

Here's to 2010:

[Patrick Bateman]

It should be clear to everyone that Kingspoint is allergic to facts since he has shown at no point any willingness to do anything beyond delivering opinions in an aggressive manner.

For the record, Jack Clark was a very good hitter, one whom was marginally better with men on base and runners in scoring position (like a 20 point swing in OPS, which isn't particularly abnormal considering that generally pitchers who are letting lots of guys on aren't pitching that great in the first place and have to pitch differently in these situations).

In the end, the assertion that Clark boasted some sort of magical skill as an RBI machine is obviously bad fiction, much like Dean Kootz. The further notion that he has been able to pass this gene down to Yonder Alonso also makes no sense in terms of science and genetics as they are not related, but also unsupported by anything more than Kingspoint's obersvations, which as far as I know isn't even kept track of on Fangraphs. In the end, the answer to how many RBI's Alonso will be getting is unlikely going to be an "inordinate amount compared to the amount of opportunities" as that obviously doesn't make sense.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by Patrick Bateman

It should be clear to everyone that Kingspoint is allergic to facts since he has shown at no point any willingness to do anything beyond delivering opinions in an aggressive manner.

For the record, Jack Clark was a very good hitter, one whom was marginally better with men on base and runners in scoring position (like a 20 point swing in OPS, which isn't particularly abnormal considering that generally pitchers who are letting lots of guys on aren't pitching that great in the first place and have to pitch differently in these situations).

In the end, the assertion that Clark boasted some sort of magical skill as an RBI machine is obviously bad fiction, much like Dean Kootz. The further notion that he has been able to pass this gene down to Yonder Alonso also makes no sense in terms of science and genetics as they are not related, but also unsupported by anything more than Kingspoint's obersvations, which as far as I know isn't even kept track of on Fangraphs. In the end, the answer to how many RBI's Alonso will be getting is unlikely going to be an "inordinate amount compared to the amount of opportunities" as that obviously doesn't make sense.

Facts are often misleading. Thus, there was no reason to try to use them. I never even bothered to look it up, as it didn't matter. I know what I saw over Jack Clark's career. I don't need any stats to verify it or dispute it, even if it was possible to do it. I suppose one could look up what his stats were when he had an at-bat when he represented the tying or go-ahead run, or there was a man on base who represented the tying or go-ahead run. And then compare that to all of the other times he was at bat. But, I don't want to take 25 hours to figure that out.

It is an opinion, but my opinion is a good one on this. I try to only comment on players that I know "extremely" well. Jack Clark "delivered"....a lot more often than Tony Perez ever did in the clutch (compared to the players that Perez had around him Offensively) and he was known as Mr. Clutch. Jack Clark had abysmal Offensive players around him, yet he delivered time and time again when it mattered....when it tied the game or put his team ahead. That's the truest definition of what I'm talking about. Yonder Alonso is the EXACT same type of player.

You can have your opinion. I just know that mine is 100% correct on this matter. There's not a chance in Hades that I'm wrong about this.

I will walk from St. Louis to Cincinnati if I'm wrong about this.

[Patrick Bateman]

Originally Posted by Kingspoint

Facts are often misleading. Thus, there was no reason to try to use them. I never even bothered to look it up, as it didn't matter. I know what I saw over Jack Clark's career. I don't need any stats to verify it or dispute it, even if it was possible to do it. I suppose one could look up what his stats were when he had an at-bat when he represented the tying or go-ahead run, or there was a man on base who represented the tying or go-ahead run. And then compare that to all of the other times he was at bat. But, I don't want to take 25 hours to figure that out.

It is an opinion, but my opinion is a good one on this. I try to only comment on players that I know "extremely" well. Jack Clark "delivered"....a lot more often than Tony Perez ever did in the clutch (compared to the players that Perez had around him Offensively) and he was known as Mr. Clutch. Jack Clark had abysmal Offensive players around him, yet he delivered time and time again when it mattered....when it tied the game or put his team ahead. That's the truest definition of what I'm talking about. Yonder Alonso is the EXACT same type of player.

You can have your opinion. I just know that mine is 100% correct on this matter. There's not a chance in Hades that I'm wrong about this.

I will walk from St. Louis to Cincinnati if I'm wrong about this.

This is one of the weakest responses I've probably encountered in my life. I don't mean just on Redszone or anything, I mean in every conversation I have ever had in person, on the phone, or via the internet. I honestly don't know how you could be reading and following Redszone so consistently over the last few years and still believe that this type of post could advance any discussion. The basic thesis of this post says that you:

a) have no interest in learning
b) have no interest in considering facts
c) have no interest in anyone else's opinions

I find it incredulous that you even bother posting on Redszone when you believe in the above criteria.

FACTS are not misleading. They can't be misleading. They are nothing more than a true representation of something that has already happened. Based on that meaning, it is actually not possible for them to be misleading as they are built on the foundation of honesty. The people who use facts may be misleading... as in using them incorrectly or without proper context.

But in this particular topic of how good a hitter Jack Clark is in "RBI situations," one would think that it wouldn't be particularly misleading to check stats on you know, how Jack Clark has faired in situations with people on base and/or in scoring position.

The facts on that say that he is marginally better compared to his career in other situations which isn't abnormal considering how players in general are a little bit better in those situations because of the circumstance of the situation.

Your perceptions are simply not enough to prove your point or advance this discussion, as honestly your perceptions have no worth to me. You have not gained any type of ethos in your past postings to suggest that you could say factless things like this and turn out right, nor have you provided your opinion in a constructive way, and lastly, in regards to Alonso, this argument just doesn't make sense. I get the sense that your posts are meant to be a joke, or that you are punking me or something. THAT seems more appropriate for the situation.