I don't really think he as to improve to be a good reliever. Stepping back from the stats, if you have a 100-mph fastball, a lights-out curve, and mediocre control, that's the makeup of a good closer IMO.
edit: OK, I guess the "metrics" have to improve, but that happens with a move the the pen. Things are different for hitters seeing a guy once, who's throwing a lot faster than your previous 3 or 4 trips to the plate.
Last edited by kpresidente; 04-27-2015 at 11:08 AM.
Looks like some are finally being realistic about Stephenson. Is he an interesting prospect? Absolutely. Is he a top-50 overall prospect in MLB as we were led to believe? Absolutely not. Until he tightens up his command a great deal, he's not even a top-100 prospect. And I don't care what the lists say.
Doesn't mean you give up on him. You definitely don't give up on him. He can still turn things around. But I'm concerned to say the least. Especially for a guy who was billed as the best prospect in the organization. An organization that ranks middle of the pack in MLB in terms of best minor league talent.
The difference is Chuckie that when people put together those lists they are not simply looking at numbers or results. It is about talent and projections, not just BB/9.Originally Posted by Chuckie
“I don’t care,” Votto said of passing his friend and former teammate. “He’s in the past. Bye-bye, Jay.”
Weird, three starts ago, every prospect list on the planet ranked Robert Stephenson in the Top 50.
And short of an injury, no one is going to alter their opinion on three starts without a drastic increase/decline in skill, which hasn't happened.
He is still a top-50 prospect by my book, that's for sure. Some things just bear watching.
I have nothing to really back this up, but is it possible prospect gurus continue to put underperforming players in their top 50/100 lists from year-to-year because they don't want to admit they are wrong in the first place?
Not saying that is what is going on here, but I have wondered this question in the past.
Seems like some prospects will stay on top 100 lists for years and then never materialize into a major leaguer.
Chuckie (04-28-2015),Old school 1983 (04-28-2015),REDREAD (04-28-2015)
I didn't see an objection to Stephenson still being considered a very good prospect.
The objection was to the notion that his "floor" is an "elite" reliever.
Read Chuckies post from 12:24 today.
Scouting matters more than stats at this point of development. Sounds weird coming from me, I know. He's still learning how to pitch.
Barry On Baseball Also blogging at Banished to the Pen.
You had better believe this goes on. And it goes both ways. If they bash a player and don't include him in the top 50 or top 100, they won't change their minds even when that player proves them wrong with his numbers. They don't want to admit they're wrong, so they keep certain prospects high and certain prospects low. This is how a joke of a player like Jesus Montero was ranked as the No. 1 overall prospect in baseball for 2 straight years, even when his numbers screamed "average at best."
Nah, I still think Stephenson is a "very good" prospect. I just take umbrage with the idea that he's an "elite" prospect (top 50 overall in MLB). There is a giant delta between "elite" and "very good" IMO.
I love how sabermetrics are lauded at the MLB level, but when discussing minor leaguers it's like "Nah man, forget about the numbers -- trust the scouts!"
Please. Even in the minor leagues, numbers are very important. Extremely important. You don't put up bad numbers in the minors and then suddenly become a good MLB player. It doesn't happen. There might be exceptions to the rule, but in most cases, successful MLB players were successful minor league players. This is not up for debate -- it's a fact.
Sabermetrics work for Major Leaguers because for the most part, they are done developing their skills.
They don't work for minor leaguers because those guys are literally learning things each week and their games are evolving.
RedlegJake (04-28-2015)
I would submit once a player reaches the Double-A or Triple-A levels, sabermetrics are much more important than you are giving them credit for. I would surmise the good organizations in baseball pay very close attention to the sabermetics of their prospects at the high levels of the minors. Scouting is more important at the lower levels IMO.
Age is more important than level when it comes to looking at stats. How old is a guy? Where is he playing at? Those matter a whole heck of a lot more than you seem to want to admit. Scouting is incredibly important at every level, MLB included. Scouting can fix sabermetric problems at times.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote