I did not see this coming

by Roberto on Jan 15, 2009 4:38 PM EST

Over at Baseball America, Jim Callis responded to the query, "Who do you think are the 10 best prospects in the National League?" No shock, Number 1 was David Price. With some chagrin I noted that Number 2 was Matt Wieters. But, to my surprise, Pedro Alvarez was his Number 3. Referring to Alvarez as a "devastating" hitter, Callis did not offer much insight into why he picked someone with no professional experience over better-known candidates like Colby Rasmus or Tommy Hanson. How does this sound to others?

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of the managing editor (Charlie) or SB Nation. FanPosts are written by Bucs Dugout readers.

Tweet Comment 10 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Was it in the game

because david price and wieters are in the american league, and the other day he said alvarez was the best in the national league hitter.

by piratefn7 on Jan 15, 2009 7:11 PM EST reply actions

Rasmus is coming off a so-so year at AAA and probably shouldn’t be terribly close to the top five. Hanson, if the velocity bump he supposedly showed this year sticks, is probably right up there with Price, but one should always be skeptical of reports about velocity.

I don’t see Callis’ ranking as a huge surprise. I think some Pirates fans lack perspective on Alvarez. The fact that he hasn’t played professionally isn’t as important as his upside, and he should come quickly anyway if he’s anywhere near as good as advertised. I always was surprised when people would rank Andrew McCutchen ahead of Alvarez. McCutchen could be a nice player in three years; Alvarez could be Mark Teixeira, starting in around 2010.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 15, 2009 7:49 PM EST reply actions

Well,

Cutch is more of a sure bet of at least being a useful contributor at this point in time. If someone is ranking prospects purely based on probability of major league production, “Alvarez’s = a star” would still be assigned a low percentage at this point in his career, and wouldn’t result in a very high value.

by DITO on Jan 17, 2009 12:54 PM EST up reply actions

I disagree. I think the chances of Alvarez becoming a star are actually very good, and that there are still plenty of chances for McCutchen to fail to make it. I don’t mean to sound pessimistic about McCutchen, who’s a perfectly good prospect, but sometimes there are guys who are so good coming out of college you have to toss out the usual rules. I’m thinking Teixeira or Pat Burrell here.

Also, I hope this doesn’t sound snippy, but since when do people rank prospects on the "probability of major league production"? If ideas about ranking don’t take into account upside, they don’t mean a whole lot, IMO.

by Charlie Wilmoth on Jan 17, 2009 11:42 PM EST up reply actions

I'm not saying they don't take into account upside,

I’m saying it shouldn’t be the only factor. For a guy who has never swung a bat at the professional level, maybe you should taper your expectations on his potential upside. If you think Pedro Alvarez might turn into Mark Teixeira, that “might” should be assigned a probability. If it is high, then his ranking would be higher. But, seriously, he just hasn’t proven anything yet.

Are you suggesting that people should rank prospects on upside alone?

by DITO on Jan 18, 2009 12:42 AM EST up reply actions

If You Don't Rank "Prospects" on "Potential Major League Production" ...

what do you rank them on???

Good looks, ability to be ariculate in interviews, attractiveness of their girlfriend(s) or wife???

Players are drafted because of their supposed ability to produce at the major league level. That is what scouting/talent evaluation is supposed to be all about.

At this point in time, McCutchen (and Tabata) are far better prospects than Alvarez. They each have three plus years of professional baseball experience with decent tract records.

Alvarez has done NOTHING yet.

by thegunner on Jan 18, 2009 10:59 AM EST reply actions

He didn't say that:

He said “probability of ML production”, which is a totally different thing.

For example, consider the choice of a polished college relief pitcher in the first round. It’s fairly likely that such players will make the majors, especially compared to a high school position player or something like that, but the best-case scenario for the reliever (decent setup guy or closer) is so much lower than the best-case scenario for the high schooler (core contributor, future Hall of Famer) that sometimes the high school player is the right choice for the drafting team even though there’s a higher chance that he’ll never reach the majors at all.

Think of it like casino gambling. If your objective is to play for an hour and lose as little money as possible, you want the nickel slots (assuming that you can’t count cards and play blackjack). If your objective is to win the million dollars you owe the mob in the next fifteen minutes so they don’t break your legs once you leave the casino, you want a game with a lower chance of success per iteration but a much higher return per success (like roulette, say) because it’s easier to build a big roll on a small winning streak in roulette than it is to hit 5,000 jackpots on the nickel slots in that same time.

by Vlad on Jan 18, 2009 1:00 PM EST up reply actions

You weren't replying to me,

but I want to clarify that I am talking about considering both upside and likeliness. Those who rank Cutch in front of Alvarez can justify doing so if they believe he has a much higher likeliness of at least being useful, along with the fact that Cutch has a pretty good upside to boot.

The drafting example you use above is much more drastic than the difference between these two propects.

by DITO on Jan 18, 2009 4:42 PM EST up reply actions