Pirates Top 30 Prospects: April 2010 Edition
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 1:43 AM EDT
Email
Print
Brock Holt (Photo by WTM)
This should be an interesting time to do a prospect list--we have more information about the Pirates' minor leaguers than we had a few weeks ago, but we can argue about what a lot of it means. A bunch of the Bucs' prospects are very hard to rank right now; you could make legitimate cases for putting someone like Jarek Cunningham in a bunch of different places on this list. So hopefully this list will be a good excuse to argue about a bunch of these guys.
I'll probably do another one of these around the time of the draft, and then another once the draftee signing period is over. I'd intended to do one after winter ball ended, but found myself suffering some pretty intense fatigue from all the lists coming out around that time, so I decided to put it off. My last list is from October.
Again, the criterion I'm using to define the word "prospect" is Major League Baseball's rule for rookie eligibility: 130 at bats, 50 innings pitched, or 45 days of big-league service. So, at this point, John Raynor and Neil Walker are eligible; Donnie Veal and Steve Pearce are out. The grades are based on John Sickels' and essentially range from A, which means Jason Heyward, to C, which could mean a random Class A guy who might have potential or a Class AAA guy who will probably be a bit player in the majors.
UPDATE: Some people have expressed some concern in the comments about some of the grades. It's perfectly normal for the Pirates to only have one guy in the "A" range at this point. "A" players are typically in the high minors and are very likely to become stars. Sickels very rarely gives players "A"s. On top of that, most of the Pirates' best prospects at this stage are in the low minors, and typically they'll receive lower grades because of the amount of uncertainty in projecting players that far from the majors. This list really isn't intended to be sobering or anything like that. I think the development of the Pirates' minor league system is coming along fine.
By the way--a lot of the video below comes from Tim from BuccoFans, who taped a lot of these guys last year in Lynchburg. So thanks, Tim, for putting your stuff on YouTube.
1. Pedro Alvarez, 3B, Indianapolis. Grade: A-. Previous ranking: 1. This is an easy call; Alvarez's transition to Class AAA has mostly been smooth, although a lot of his production came in the first week of the season, and the strikeouts are still a concern.
2. Tony Sanchez, C, Bradenton. Grade: B+. Previous ranking: 2. I ranked Sanchez at #2 in the last two lists, and that was pretty aggressive, but nothing that has happened since then has made those rankings look bad. Scouts love Sanchez's defense even more than they used to, and his hitting so far has been fantastic. Ryan Doumit has been a disaster so far this year; Sanchez can't get to the big leagues quickly enough.
3. Starling Marte, OF, Bradenton. Grade: B+. Previous ranking: 6. No homers yet, but Marte has six extra-base hits and five steals, and he's hitting .333/.435/.471. His tools are second to none, and nothing about his performance record really limits his upside in any way. He does need to learn to control the strike zone a bit better, but he's raw enough at this stage that he can work on that.
4. Jose Tabata, OF, Indianapolis. Grade: B. Previous ranking: 3. If he's really 21, he's still a very good prospect, but it's a bit worrisome that he keeps having the same season over and over: good average, good OBP, but very little power. If he's 24, he's a fringe prospect. Despite some rather weird comments by Neal Huntington this offseason about Tabata's age, though, there's no reason to assume his listed age isn't real--the ages of Venezuelan players like Tabata tend to be more reliable than those of Dominican players. And Tabata's performance in the Arizona Fall League was excellent.
5. Rudy Owens, SP, Altoona. Grade: B-. Previous ranking: 4. I'm dropping Owens a grade not because of his progress, but because I think I overrated him a bit last time. Keith Law recently compared Owens to Zach Duke, and after watching Owens pitch for Altoona, I think that's apt. He'll probably continue to put up excellent minor league numbers because he has a good curve and because he knows how to pitch, but his upside is somewhat limited once he gets to the big leagues. I could probably rank him lower for that reason. But it's hard to overlook stuff like the 15:1 K:BB ratio Owens is putting up so far.
6. Brad Lincoln, SP, Indianapolis. Grade: B-. Previous ranking: 5. He's close to the majors, was once the fourth overall pick in the draft, has good control, has shown a bunch of perseverance in battling back from injuries. Those are all good things. But beyond that, there's little to recommend him. He's almost 25, his strikeout rates have been lackluster, and he hasn't yet dominated AAA. He's this high because of his proximity to the majors and the good chance he'll be useful; I'm not sure he'll be much more than that.
7. Robbie Grossman, OF, Bradenton. Grade: B-. Previous ranking: 7. Again, my ranking Grossman this high before was pretty aggressive, but I like keeping him here for now, as he's off to a nice start. Grossman's strikeouts last year were really problematic, but so far this year he has 13 strikeouts compared to ten walks, which isn't bad at all. He also has a .411 OBP and has been an important part of Bradenton's devastating offense, all at the age of 20. Not bad.
8. Zack Von Rosenberg, SP. Grade: B-. Previous ranking: 9. This well-regarded high school pick from last year's draft hasn't pitched yet. We'll get a closer look at him later this summer, hopefully at State College and then West Virginia, following about the path that fellow high school draftee Quinton Miller took last year. In the meantime, I see no reason to move Von Rosenberg around much.
9. Chase D'Arnaud, SS, Altoona. Grade: B-. Previous ranking: 10. D'Arnaud has been MIA so far this year, but with an excellent season at two Class A levels in 2009 and a solid Arizona Fall League performance, there's no reason to worry much yet.
10. Bryan Morris, SP, Bradenton. Grade: C+. Previous ranking: 19. After a disastrous 2009 campaign, Morris looks to be back on track after four great starts so far at Bradenton. Reports about him out of camp were glowing as well. He could move up the list quickly as the season goes on.
11. Jarek Cunningham, IF, West Virginia. Grade: C+. Previous ranking: 24. Cunningham was down near the bottom of the list after missing all of last season with injuries, but he hasn't missed a beat upon returning this year, posting a line of .354/.358/.462. The 12:1 K:BB ratio is a little worrisome, but it must be hard to be too selective when you're hitting .354. He's a hard player to rank, but like Cunningham at the plate, I'm going to be aggressive.
12. Quinton Miller, SP, West Virginia. Grade: C+. Previous ranking: 11. The Pirates are being very cautious with Miller, but there's no reason not to like him so far; he has a 1.50 ERA in six innings early on. He currently has bicep tendinitis, which doesn't sound like a big deal.
13. Jeff Locke, SP, Bradenton. Grade: C+. Previous ranking: 12. It was disappointing to see that Locke was held back in Class A+ this year after spending all of 2009 there, but he's posted 17 strikeouts in 13.2 innings so far.
14. Tim Alderson, SP, Altoona. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 8. Ranking Alderson here at 14 may actually be generous at this point. He's throwing in the mid-80s now, which won't even fly in Class AA. His control has always been excellent, but he needs to throw several MPH harder to succeed. The Freddy Sanchez deal may turn out to be one that neither team wins.
15. Nathan Adcock, SP, Bradenton. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 27. From this point on, we're playing a little bit of prospect bingo, and at this early point in the season we certainly run the risk of overrating or underrating someone based on a few weeks of games. Adcock gets a bump for getting off to a good start, whiffing a batter an inning so far.
16. Brock Holt, SS, Bradenton. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 29. The Bucs are being very aggressive with Holt, which suggests that they like him, and he's off to a good start after skipping low Class A entirely. Let's hope he makes it, not only because the Pirates need infielders, but because he could inspire one of the Pirates blogosphere's funnier memes. Volt for Brock Holt!
17. Colton Cain, SP. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 15. Cain moves down a bit after missing some development time recovering from back surgery. He probably wouldn't have played before the start of short-season ball anyway.
18. Quincy Latimore, OF, Bradenton. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 25. Latimore has cooled in the past few days, but his excellent start at Bradenton earns him a bump here. He's a bit like his teammate Grossman, in that strike zone issues will probably determine whether he has a career. Latimore's power is pretty clearly legitimate, however.
19. Neil Walker, UT, Indianapolis. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 19. Walker is off to a great start at Indianapolis, which is nice. He was drafted back when I was still writing posts on a twenty-pound monitor, and he's been at Indy for ages, so it's about time. He has a future as a utility player, albeit one without much upside.
20. Victor Black, SP. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 23. I'm moving Black up a bit from the last list because it wasn't clear to me then how much the Pirates liked him, but he's injured and has yet to pitch this year.
21. Trent Stevenson, SP. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 20. A good, live arm from the 2009 draft who hasn't pitched yet, so there's no reason to move him around much.
22. Justin Wilson, SP, Altoona. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 17. Wilson is off to a terrible start at Altoona. He needed some time to adjust to Class A+ last year, but he ended up succeeding in doing so; let's hope he can do it again. This is a case where it would be easy to overreact. Wilson has only had three starts, and only one of them (a six-walk stinker against Erie) has really been all that bad.
23. Brooks Pounders, SP. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 21. Like Stevenson, he hasn't pitched yet, which at his age isn't a cause for alarm. Hopefully he'll start at State College.
24. Brett Lorin, SP. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 14. Like Cain, Lorin should be back at midseason, but missing the first half of the year (after hip surgery, in Lorin's case) hurts a 23-year-old a lot more than it hurts a kid just out of high school. Lorin pitched very well in 2009, but he was a little old for his level even then; he needs to hit the ground running when he comes back.
25. Nate Baker, SP, West Virginia. Grade: C. Previous ranking: NA. The 2009 fifth-rounder has been solid in West Virginia so far. You'd expect competence from a well-regarded college lefty pitching at Class A, of course; Baker probably won't really be tested until he's promoted.
26. Jordy Mercer, IF, Altoona. Grade: C. Previous ranking: NA. The Pirates have moved Mercer so quickly that it's been hard to figure out what to make of him, but he's off to a great start at Class AA. He also hit pretty well down the stretch at Lynchburg last year, so maybe there's something here.
27. John Raynor, OF, Pittsburgh. Grade: C. Previous ranking: NA. He belongs on the list somewhere (and it's probably the only one he'll ever make, because he'll have too much service time for the next one), but letting someone sit on the bench for a year is a pretty dubious way to develop him. I wouldn't be surprised if Raynor ended up being offered back to the Marlins, if the number of roster decisions the Pirates have already had to make is any indication.
28. Gorkys Hernandez, OF, Altoona. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 16. FAIL.
29. Jeffrey Inman, SP. Grade: C. Previous ranking: NA. I'm not sure why he hasn't pitched yet, but every report I read out of camp suggested that his velocity was impressive and that he just generally looked like a beast. He's gotten less attention than guys like Von Rosenberg and Cain, but it's worth pointing out yet again that he was once a very highly regarded draft prospect and the Pirates paid $425,000 to get him. Keep your eyes peeled for him.
30. Exicardo Cayonez, OF. Grade: C. Previous ranking: 26. Cayonez is about as interesting as they come for a guy who hasn't played in the U.S. minors yet--he got a big bonus, he's incredibly young, and he smacked a ton of doubles in the Venezuelan Summer League last year. Hopefully he'll continue hitting once the short-season leagues get going.
I also strongly considered adding Ronald Uviedo (who moves down after making the switch back to the bullpen), Josh Harrison and Rogelios Noris. Jeremy Farrell entered my mind, too, but I'd like to see a couple months of sustained performance before I start taking him seriously.
154 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
excellent and fair
and sad. so so many of the guys targeted in trades by this team are likely nothing more than mediocre prospects.
Even Tabata at this point may be nothing more than a high 280 or so hitter with no power.
Alderson is close to bust status. Locke the same. Brad Lincoln will never be more than a 500 pitcher in the bigs.
Marte may turn out to be a find.
Sanchez is perhaps the best of all.
Even Alvarez is having troubles, but I still have the highest of hopes for him.
As has been pointed out before, what were they supposed to get for mediocre players other than mediocre prospects? You think we’re getting Jason Heyward/Justin Smoak/someone similar for Jack Wilson? Adam LaRoche? Nate McClouth? And so on.
Heyward for Wilson probably would have flown back in the day (see Bagwell for Andersen). Front offices are way too smart now. It’s a shame.
Pirates, Vikings, Hokies. I'm used to heartbreak. At least I have the Penguins....
"When I put on my uniform, I feel I am the proudest man on earth."
-The Great One
by blackjackfishtaco on Apr 26, 2010 9:26 AM EDT up reply actions
Actually...
Morris is having a really nice season and Locke’s last outing was outstanding so there is till hope for them. I agree that Alderson is close to bust status. I’m not high on him at all. And if Tabata is only 21 it’s way, way too early to label him as an average hitter with no power. The expecations on him are so high that people are getting tired of waiting for him. A little point of reference, Marte is 21 and playing in A ball. I’m sure Tabata could go to Bradenton and put up much better numbers. In the end though, lots of depth, very little impact talent. This is why the organization has not cracked the top 10 of any major publication. They are still about two good drafts away.
Tabata's 21.
Nobody hits for much power when they’re 21. If he’d been born in the US, he’d be in his junior year of college now, instead of holding his own in AAA.
We won’t have any real info as to Tabata’s future power potential until maybe 2012/2013.
by Vlad on Apr 26, 2010 10:56 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Like Tabata and Marte, Alderson is 21. It’s way too early to give up on him. His prospect status is contingent on the possibility that he regains his stuff, which is far from a guarantee, but he still has a better chance of doing so than an arbitrary C prospect has of suddenly developing a plus-plus curve.
I see this season as “developmental” for him, and I’m willing to largely ignore his stats and any demotion he may get. Next year is the make or break season for him so I’m putting him on the back burner for now.
charity standing orders
I always wonder how the pitching coaches are in the minors.
Are they good at developing the pitchers in the Minors. There are times I feel like the pitchers go through the organization and then show up at the big club like the game suddenly changed. Almost like a mental status change.
And do the pirates have a top notch roving pitching coach to help players like morris, locke, alderson get better?
Jim Benedict is our minor league pitching coordinator.
His abilities as an instructor are hard for us to assess from our position, of course. He’s got experience at the position, and he’s worked with Kerrigan in the past.
The Twins have had lots of depth, little impact talent for about a decade now. It usually ends up working out nicely for them.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
Huh?
Mauer and Santana not impact talent? Not to mention Morneau, Hunter, Liriano….
I mean, they haven’t produced a new superstar every season, but I’d say two guys capable of 7+ WAR seasons in 5 years is pretty productive, especially if there’s other talent coming up as well.
I think what he means is that since 2005 or so, the Twins really haven’t graduated a star player from their system. Liriano had his breakout season in 2006, while Mauer and Morneau are entering their 6th and 7th seasons in the majors. Hunter’s been around for quite a while, actually (played 135 games back in 1999), while Santana threw 80+ innings way back in 2000. Maybe a decade is a bit much, but since 95 or so, they haven’t really produced any new true “stars.”
Mauer is impact for sure. Notice I said “little impact,” not “no impact.”
Morneau is a guy I’ve never got why everyone was so high on. He hits slightly better than an average first baseman, and he’s worth about 3.5 WAR per season, or one more win than Andy LaRoche last year. Not saying he’s not good, but it’s not like he’s Pujols. Everyone acts like he’s one of the best 1B in the league.
And yeah, Santana, Hunter, Liriano are all impact guys, but who were they replaced with? (Aside from Liriano, who’s still on the team.) Definitely not more impact talent. Baker is good, but he’s no Santana. Span is good, but he’s no Hunter. I wouldn’t call any of their replacements “impact guys.” My point is that they continue to win even without the star power they used to have. I’d rather have a system like that than one with 4-5 impact guys at the top and nobody behind them.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
Sanchez
to say sanchez is the best of all is jumping the gun. Clearly, some did not have any trouble till they reached AA. Or in some cases, AAA.
There is no guarantee Sanchez will continue to play at his present level as he rises. There is much about the minor leagues that is unclear at this point…
by BurgherKing on Apr 26, 2010 11:17 AM EDT up reply actions
Really?
I’m surprised how fast some people just throw in the towel. When we traded for Alderson, all the talk was how he could be a great middle-of-the-rotation guy in the future. The guy was one of the Giants’ best prospects. Now, after losing a little velocity, he’s close to a bust?! C’mon, that’s jumping the gun a little. Do the names Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine and Jamie Moyer ring a bell? Those guys all pitched (and still pitch) in the mid-80’s and two of them are likely Hall of Famers! If you have pinpoint control of all your pitches (which Alderson seemingly does), you can be successful. Velocity is overrated sometimes. Now, granted, I would like to see him increase his velocity some, but the guy is still a great prospect. I’m not saying the guy will be an ace, but he might be the best pitching prospect in our system. I think saying he’s on the verge of being a bust after having him for not even an entire year yet is ridiculous.
It's too early to give up on him entirely...
…but he’s not the best pitching prospect in our system. Not even close.
Maddux had more velocity than Alderson until the very end of his career, and he succeeded by having the best command of any pitcher of our generation, which Alderson doesn’t have. Glavine and Moyer were both lefties, which means that they aren’t good comps, either – there are lots of no-stuff lefties in MLB, but only a handful of no-stuff righties.
You can have very good command of a low 80s FB plus very good breaking stuff and make the majors, but it won’t get you much more than John Stephens’s career in the end.
I’ve always liked Jeff Locke. The standard numbers (ERA, W-L, etc) haven’t been there for him, but he had a 3.16 FIP after the trade last year, and I think it’s in the 2s through his first few starts this year. He may be a victim of poor defensive play at the lower levels. I probably would have moved him up actually.
Thank God
Something to take my mind off of the actual major league team.
Well done Charlie, I think this list is a pretty good representation of what we have. Guys like Cunningham and Mercer continue to intrigue me alot, along with Holt
The glare of the spotlight is harsh, and the pressure that success breeds immense. We revere our heroes, but expect much. And criticism can come as easily as praise.
wow
Looking through this list…. I really dont see us contending anytime soon. even IF IF alvarez and tabata turn into real good major leaguers and lincoln comes through, all of our talent is at the A level. And we have no good pitching prospects close to the majors and pitching is our problem. this SUCKS
Re: Marte
Watching the video (oh, gawd, that music!), I notice that he is all arms in his swing, and his hips are very “patient” WRT weight transfer, which I consider to be very good. If he gets just a little more “body” into his swing, watch out!
Alderson: Are we still trying to “calm down” his delivery? I seem to recall reading somewhere that he was being allowed to “go back to” that style. Any update, or more recent video that anyone knows of?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
Who is
That 7ft tall catcher in the Marte video? Geeze I haven’t seen a catcher that tall or an ump that short in a long time.
We only have one grade A prospect with all the trades, early round draft picks and after spending the most in the draft the last 2 years?
Wow depressing is right
That's Sickels's grading system.
Having one “A” prospect is actually pretty typica l- thos. Guys are supposed to be straight-up locks for at least minor stardom.
Low-minors guys pretty much get a C or a C+ until they get closer to the majors, unless they’re a first-round pick from the year before or something like that.
A lot of our current Cs and C+s will be solid Bs in two years.
by Vlad on Apr 26, 2010 11:01 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Yep.
My posts here are probably 50/50 between my work computer and my phone.
No home internet, because I just bought a house and have like zero discretionary income right now.
I hear ya, brother.
I was doing the same thing. For a while I was able to grab the wireless signal from my “unsecured network” neighbor. Then, they put WPA2 up and I am unhappy now.
So are you in town or what?
You referred to yourself as the Massachusetts Grammar Police, but then you were at Opening Day. What’s the deal?
Oh, and my attendance plummeted after buying a house, but mine’s a serious fixer-upper.
I'm in Pittsburgh.
Just off Freeport Rd.
The “Militant Grammarians of Massachusetts” thing was a David Foster Wallace joke. They’re a fictional group in his novel Infinite Jest (which I can’t recommend highly enough).
Ah
Thanks. I’m torn about DFW, and I just can’t commit to a book that thick unless I’m pretty sure I’ll like it (I suppose I could, technically, stop part way through, but it would never happen).
One of these days.
Start with his non-fiction, then. He has two books of non-fiction essays and they’re both amazing while being a lot less intimidating.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 3:35 PM EDT up reply actions
I've admired a couple of his essays
And of course I love the footnotes. But “Consider the Lobster” rubbed me slightly wrong (and not just because I like to eat lobster). But yeah, try more essays, then decide.
Do the SBNation blogs for good teams talk about literature and homeowner tax credits?
I like the part where he gets going about SUVs and Hummers, and then tells the audience to stop applauding.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions
I love this board...
Where else can you find Pirate fans who are also DFW fans? Infinite Jest was incredible…
D'oh!
For a shorter, easier read
I’d suggest this piece on Roger Federer:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/20/sports/playmagazine/20federer.html?pagewanted=all
I’m not much of a tennis fan, but I loved this piece.
Ditto on the house congrats.
Now, for sure I’ll have a place to crash for the BD Gathering (announcement to come shortly).
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Apr 27, 2010 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions
My fiancee and I are looking at getting a house now, as we want to move from our apartment. It’s a terrifying process. Congrats.
I haven’t even gotten that far into it, but I thought the credit was only for last year. Heard they might extend it / offer it again, though.
We’re still at the stage of figuring out which neighborhood / area. Probably Dormont, Crafton, Castle Shannon…something like that. Still soliciting opinions and everything, so any suggestions, go for it!
Ah I see
So is a B player considered a ML starter type player? If so we do seem to have alot of potential solid MLB players in the minors.
Sad thing is that you need 4 to 5 really minor to superstar level players to make a run IMO. 2 to 3 pitchers and at least 2 sure enough big bats.
IMO I think McCutchen is a great complimentary player but not a superstar in the making. Maybe he turns into Curtis Granderson but I don’t see Griffey Jr numbers for him.
by eyeofhorus777 on Apr 26, 2010 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions
Look at it this way
You need something like 50 WAR to be a playoff contender. Bench and bullpen are worth, at best, ~3 wins, so let’s set them aside. 8 position players plus 5 SP, one of whom, at best, is 0 WAR. So you’re looking at 48 WAR spread over 12 players.
This, btw, puts into perspective Vlad’s frequent – and correct – point that Andy LaRoche is basically a league-average 3B. Which translated last year to ~2.5 WAR. Assuming he doesn’t repeat his worst struggles, you could bump that up to 3-3.5 WAR, which means that he’s still hurting us relative to what we need to contend. Cutch’s 2009 extrapolates to 5 WAR, and I think we all agree that that’s about right for him, with some more upside as he matures. But Cutch + LaRoche balance out to just be what you need to contend, and that’s taking our best and 4th-best (?) players.
So, unless you have above-average players at every position and at your first 4 SP slots, you need a lot of superstar production to compensate.
BTW, regarding acesg: a rotation with Johan Santana, Duke, and Maholm only gets you 12 WAR, meaning you need 4 more WAR from your other 2 pitchers, one of whom is presumably a scrub. If you’re lucky, you can find a couple of 2 WAR guys to fill out your rotation, but as we’ve seen, that’s a lot easier said than done (Morton was on a 2 WAR pace last year, btw). A rotation of 5 Maholms, even if they stayed healthy, would still be a bit below par.
50WAR?
probably more like 40… 50 gets you in every time i think
by BurgherKing on Apr 26, 2010 12:08 PM EDT up reply actions
I was trying to figure out how to write that
50 WAR gets you into the mid-90s (I’ve seen varying wins for an all-replacement team, but the ballpark is ±45*). That’s usually sufficient, but I didn’t want to say it was a lock (although I guess with the Wild Card, it’s pretty close).
But I don’t think just 40 WAR gets you in the playoffs very often, just somewhere on the radar screen.
- although it’s higher in the NL, right? So I guess that helps us.
yeah, you are right
I think its about 47 for the NL?
But I was referring to: “You need something like 50 WAR to be a playoff contender”
40 means you’d be a contender… you may, of course, not make it…
by BurgherKing on Apr 26, 2010 12:26 PM EDT up reply actions
I don't understand at all your contention
that the bench plus the bullpen are worth at best 3 wins since Brad Lidge, for instance, had a WAR of 3.8 all by himself in 2004. Also, your contention that the 5th starter will automatically have a WAR of 0 or worse seems dubious.
by WestCoastBuc on Apr 26, 2010 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions
As for #5
Fifth starters, as a general rule, are replacement-level pitchers. Per this analysis, the 5th slot for ML teams averages an ERA+ below 80. As a quick check, David Hernandez, of the O’s, has a career ERA+ of 84, and a career WAR of -0.3. The best teams get maybe a 100 ERA+, which is worth something like a half WAR per season.
Obviously there are teams that have above-0 5th starters, but I’m not talking about all the ways to construct a team, I’m talking about likely scenarios. Getting (meaningful) positive WAR from your 5th slot is a lot less likely than averaging 4 across your top 4 starters.
I think 100 ERA+ should be average, which would be around 2 WAR, no?
by MarkInDallas on Apr 26, 2010 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions
100 ERA+ is above-average for SP...
…and below-average for RP, because starting is more difficult than relieving.
In any case I was curious about your argument
which if I understand it correctly is that to contend a National League team needs something close to 48 WAR from their 8 starting position players and 4 top starting pitchers. The first team I looked at was the 2009 Dodgers and found
Maritn 2.2
Loney 1.5
Hudson 2.9
Furcal 3.0
Blake 4.6
Ramariz 2.5
Kemp 5.0
Ethier 2.7
Wolf 3.0
Billingsley 3.1
Kershaw 4.2
Kuroda 2.2
Total 37.9
Since they won the division by 3 over the Rockies who in turn won the WC by 4, it suggests that it is reasonable to hope to contend with a WAR in the low 30s for these 12 players if the bench bullpen and 5th starter was as good as the Dodgers was.
by WestCoastBuc on Apr 26, 2010 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Thanks
They did get a big WAR from the ‘pen (don’t know about the bench), but it seems that their team total was in the low 40s. Which is hopeful, as it suggests an average of about 3 from your core 12, which is a lot more plausible than ~4.
Among other things, it suggests that just a couple superstars (say 6 WAR) together with a no-holes lineup gets you there: an ace, a stud OF (or 3B!), and a lot of average players.
Of course right now, I’m wondering if this team will average a positive WAR at all for 2010.
FWIW
I think I read somewhere during the offseason that the average team in 2009 received 20 WAR from position players, 10 WAR from starting pitchers and 4 WAR from the bullpen.
Huh
I actually was looking at relievers a month ago, and I thought that a decent (but not superlative) BP nets about 2 WAR. Looking at the ’09 Phils, they net about 3. The Dodgers are at ~4.5, 2/3 of that coming from Broxton. But the Cardinals, without a single dominant reliever, net 0.6 WAR from the pen.
So you can definitely get more than just a couple wins from the pen, but it seems to depend on having either one great reliever (like Broxton) or a couple excellent ones (Park and Madson for the Phils, Wuertz & Bailey for the A’s). A competent BP – one that doesn’t actively hurt you – is only worth a win or two. But point taken: 2 was too low a number for “at best”.
I’d be surprised if Matt’s right that 4 WAR is average, although it’s hard to tell just poking around. The A’s had a huge WAR from their pen, although I’m a bit skeptical – Jon Meloan managed to accumulate 0.2 WAR in 8 IP, which seems crazy, even for a guy with 11 Ks and 2 BB in that time.
A "B" player...
…is a low-minors guy with star potential (but some risk because he’s still in the low minors) or a mostly ML-ready guy who’s got a good shot at being an everyday guy (but not a lock for it, and not necessarily any star potential).
So does that system really tell you much?
Or is Sickels just having an outsize impact? It reminds me of the ongoing argument I have with my wife about grades in grad school, where (apparently) C is a de facto failing grade. She says C means an average student, and average students shouldn’t be getting Masters degrees. I say that C means the middle of distribution for whatever group you have*.
That’s not quite what Sickels has done, but you do get this crazy narrow spectrum: almost no one gets an A, and everyone who’s age-appropriate at A+ and lower gets a C, which basically leaves everyone at AA and AAA to be either a B – meaning a real prospect – or a C – meaning a marginal prospect. Granted, there’s + and -, but it still seems insufficiently fine-grained to be informative in and of itself (as evidenced by the fact that our prospects #14-3X are all Cs).
I assume that part of the intention is to avoid pretending to know more about a player than you do (while it sure looks like Cayonez has more upside than Walker, Walker looked good once, too; all you can really say is that they’re about equally likely to contribute some little something at the MLB level), which I appreciate. It may simply be that there’s no good way to express much about a player in a single letter (just as the star system for restaurant & movie reviews is pretty damn limited).
- this doesn’t work for tiny groups: if you have Einstein, Gödel, and Schrödinger in class, I’m fine with them all getting As.
Guys who are "D"s and "F"s...
…are non-prospects who don’t even get drafted/signed in the first place. Which is why he scales it the way that he does: If an undistinguished utility infielder in low-A is a “F”, then what am I? F-double-minus?
Well my point
is that, instead of aping American school letter grades, you could use a slightly broader range to talk about the actual prospects. I agree there’s no point in trying to distinguish among Rookie ball mediocrities, I’m just suggesting that there’s probably daylight between, say, Latimore and Noris, but the mostly-C system doesn’t communicate that.
I understand the appeal of using the letter grades everyone’s familiar with, and I get that, in terms of projecting talent, there’s precious few in the low minors of whom you’d confidently say “he’ll reach the bigs” let alone “he’ll be an impact major leaguer.” I just think that maybe you could use D to indicate guys who aren’t really prospects, but aren’t quite organizational players either (like, say, Gorkys if he doesn’t show anything this year – he’d be too young to literally give up on, but plainly no longer likely to reach the bigs except for a cup of coffee).
And maybe A doesn’t need to be so limited – note that Charlie was reluctant to call Pedro a full A, when we know that he’ll be in the bigs within weeks, and the odds are excellent that he’ll be an impact player the moment he arrives. I get that he has flaws, and I’m not criticizing Charlie’s designation; I just think it’s illustrative of just how restricted Sickels’ system is.
I don’t think everyone agrees that he’ll be an impact player when he arrives – or even ever. That’s why you’d put an A- instead of A.
In watching him yesterday, the LHP he was facing threw him breaking ball after breaking ball. So they are definitely targeting his weakness there.
by MarkInDallas on Apr 26, 2010 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Sickels's "A"s are valuable...
…in large part because he doesn’t give them out to just anybody. If you start grouping guys like Pedro (good prospect with some significant flaws) in with guys like Heyward (pretty much top-notch everywhere), the grade gets devalued.
"guys who aren’t really prospects, but aren’t quite organizational players either"
Sickels usually gives those guys a C-, though he doesn’t write about many of them.
Mostly when he writes about a C- guy...
…it’s someone who’s technically a rookie, and who’s likely in line for significant playing time in the coming season, even if he doesn’t project to be all that good.
I thought you liked Kratz
Not that you think he’s a stud, but I thought you’d promoted him as a perfectly viable C if we needed one.
Bocock doesn't have enough chance...
…of making the roster.
Tommy Manzella’s pretty close, honestly.
Well, I meant Bocock two years ago or whenever that was. But yeah, Manzella works.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I was lucky enough to see Marte, Grossman, and Latimore
in Charleston last year.
I have high hopes that all 3 will make it to Pittsburgh someday, and at least one of them will become a standout big leaguer.
Same
I saw all three of them about a dozen times. Don’t sleep Latimore. I said it last year, and I will say it again. He’s not a lock, but aside from the top tier guys (Alvarez, Tabata, Sanchez) and Marte, I like his upside more than anyone in our system, and that includes pitchers.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Apr 26, 2010 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions
I have a bad feeling that the only thing to keep the fans in Pittsburgh
even remotely interested in the team this year, other than Andrew McCutchen, will be the arrival of Pedro Alvarez.
I remember posting after last season that the team could be bad enough in ’10 to make a run at 110 losses. I never really thought it could be that bad, something closer to the 104 defeats of the ’85 team seemed more realistic.
But after the team actually spent a few bucks on some relievers, Iwamura, Crosby and Church, I figured we probably could eke out a campaign with only 90-something losses.
Right now, though, the 100+ loss scenario is looming larger by the day.
I hope we get some pitchers healthier and performing better soon, but it doesn’t look good.
yea
The season started out decently with having some pitching and hitting, but right now it feels like neither is working.
and I recall last year everyone saying “next year is going to be worse than this year” I was hoping for not, but it sure looks like it. Which really it shouldn’t — considering the bench to me is a nice upgrade, and the bull pen still looks better to me than last year. I think it’s more just the over work on the bullpen due to the lack of quality starts.
I think we're just going through a rough stretch.
We weren’t as good as our record in the first two weeks, and we aren’t as bad as we look right now, either.
I don't think anyone
is as bad as we’ve looked the last 6 games. Basically 5 games in 6 in which we were essentially done by the 3rd inning?
But I do think we’re genuinely worse than I had thought/hoped. The pitching’s a hot mess, and the hitting’s just not there – and there aren’t enough guys you can point to and say, “Oh, he’ll definitely come around.” I mean, I think Doumit and Lastings and Jones should come around, but I can’t swear that they will (“come around” in the sense of getting actually hot, not just regressing towards minimal competence).
Are any of the starters or SPs outperforming their projections? I don’t think so. (Maybe Cedeno, with the lowest bar to clear) Which could suggest they’re due, or could suggest they’re not that good.
A couple.
Cedeno is above expectations, and I don’t know too many people who thought LaRoche would be carrying a .868 OPS this year. Among the pitchers, Duke’s about half a run below his ZiPS.
Wow, ZiPS hates Duke
Unless I’m misreading, they were projecting 2010 to be his second-worst season, with an ERA well worse than any of his previous FIP or xFIP. I mean, I know the D is suspect, but geez.
I knew Andy was surging, but I had no idea he had an OBP of .430; wow.
I think hate is too strong a word.
ZiPS projected Duke for a 4.28 FIP this year. His lines from 2009-2006, in order, have been 4.24, 4.49, 4.95, and 4.13.
It more doesn’t like our defense (with cause).
Weird
Of course now I can’t see what I was looking at yesterday, as it’s been updated with last night’s debacle, but – as I wrote – I thought it was projecting an extra-bad FIP. The Update number is 4.54, which would be the second-highest of his career.
Where can I find ZiPS’ preseason projections?
The original BTF post with them...
…was here.
That won’t have FIP, though. To see FIP, you need to go to his Fangraphs player card and then click on the “show projections” line.
It seems like....
a lot of these guys that have been ballyhooed by the Pirate org. have not been nearly what they have been built up to be. If Brad Lincoln is the #6 prospect in the entire org.,that would not seem to be a good thing,would it?
Lincoln ranked higher...
…before he had arm surgery and missed a year. That’s the way it goes with pitchers.
by Vlad on Apr 26, 2010 11:02 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Pretty good list Charlie.
Couple of minor things but you are basically on. Pedro is a true A prospect. Even with his shortcomings no way he is an A-. Sanchez is on the verge, IMO, of breaking in to A realm. If he continues to hit at AA I think that will answer the question. I think you are too high on Alderson – he should be close to on his way out of the top 30. I also think you are selling Lincoln short. He has dominated AAA for a couple of reasons: 1) he’s only been there for half a season and 2) management wanting him working on his change so he used more than he normally would. I do agree that his lackluster K total dims the star but he still has two plus pitches and has more upside than Owens. Overall though, very nice work!
The strike zone issues make Alvarez an A-, for me. He’s clearly a special talent, but I have concerns about his ability to post decent averages in the majors.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 8:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Three guys that could develop
into outstanding RP’s are Uviedo, Dubee, and Moreno. I see Uviedo as either a marginal starter in the majors or a dominant RP, and if he keeps up his 0.69 WHIP and 12.5 K/9 in AA, he’ll be ready to contribute pretty soon.
Dubee blew away A+ ball last year, and is looking good in AA now. His K/9 in AA isn’t as great as it was in A+, but he hasn’t given up many runs, BB’s or XBH’s. He still has a good chance to contribute.
Diego Moreno should be joining those guys in AA pretty soon. He was an older Latin American signee which is why he’s still in A+ at age 23, but he has great stuff (upper 90’s FB) and has been simply dominant since making it to the states (11.4 K/9 and 4+ K/BB last year in WV). He hasn’t missed a beat at A+ ball with 11 K’s, 1 BB, 1 R in 9 innings. He’s already very good now and since this is only his second year of baseball in the U.S., he has a real chance to get better.
charity standing orders
Sure
It’s early in this season; he could get hot in May, stay hot in June, and make it to AAA in July (they could use bodies in the OF), at which point he’s just a bit behind where he should be. The trouble is that he’s been treading water, and it’s hard to see in his peripherals that a breakout is likely.
But I think that, if he doesn’t show anything this year, he’s officially an ex-prospect.
Why?
Why is he considered a failure? The guy is in Double-A at 22 years old. Sure, he may be struggling, but who doesn’t when play professional baseball? Geez, just because a guy isn’t on the fast track doesn’t mean he’s a bust.
He’s repeating a level. His wRC+ has declined every year since rookie ball. His K rate is 25%, and he has no power.
In contrast, Nyjer Morgan had better MiL K & BB numbers, slightly less power, and wRC+ that stayed consistent level to level, and no one thought he was going to be anything. Granted, he was older for his levels, but as I’ve said a million times, he had less baseball experience at those levels than his fellow players; he wasn’t outplaying them because he was a crafty veteran.
Look, as I said, he can still show something this season and be interesting. He has a bit of a pedigree. But right now he’s treading water, and if he breaks out in AA next season, he’ll be old for the level (he would show up in Indy at 24, and who knows if he’d adjust slowly again?).
As JRoth says...
…a high K rate with no power is a bad sign, and your numbers dropping in your second look at a level is a VERY bad sign. He’s got the glove, which will help, but every day he’s looking more and more like a 4th/5th OF.
Nyjer is a bad comp, in that he was grossly overaged for the level. It’s not about being a “crafty veteran”, it’s about being physically mature. Nyjer was in his physical prime (or pretty close to it), and the guys against whom he was competing mostly were not.
I actually wanted to use Tike
But his MiL numbers aren’t at Fangraphs, and I thought Nyjer at least was the same type of player, age aside. Also, I don’t think physical maturity has much to do with K rate, which was the red flag. I wouldn’t have used him to talk about power, certainly.
Physical maturity...
…helps all areas of offensive production, to one degree or another. A 27-year-old will have his best body control and his best reflexes, both of which help contact rate. And of course, it also affects power, and a high-K guy who’s hitting for power can often sacrifice some power for better contact, if he wants.
But I think we can agree
NyjMo wasn’t sacrificing power for contact.
Anyway, points all taken. Turns out he was a good player anyway!
I would move Tabata ahead of Marte, but...
all in all, a pretty good job ranking these guys.
Very interesting post.....
…thanks for the info!! Nice all-around job.
by Marooned Pirate on Apr 26, 2010 12:53 PM EDT reply actions
Neil
Let me preface this by saying Ive never been a fan of Neil Walker as a everyday player before, but cutting him completely out of the picture with the way hes been playing is a little loose in my opinion. He’s old, but he’s not that old, and if his Defense turns out to be good enough at second (where management’s been playing him recently) and his bat keeps progressing his value increases by a ton. He goes from being a marginal utility player to a young above average offensive second basemen. You don’t find many of those sitting around. On top of that, hes been on an offensive tear from the end of last year in AAA all the way till now, including drawing walks and stealing some bags. I don’t know, I’m growing cautiously optimistic that he’s turning into a good number two hitter and a pretty solid improvement over Aki.
Im not trying to hype him up, but It seems like there’s a couple reasons to at least be optimistic about him, and it seems like management might be thinking the same thing. 20+ HR potential in a second basemen is pretty rare.
I’m interested to see if Walker gets a shot to play this year. Hopefully he will continue to play well at Indy and make the FO give him a shot. That’s what they want anyway.
by MarkInDallas on Apr 26, 2010 1:22 PM EDT up reply actions
He seems to make sense in the DY role, particularly if DY isn’t hitting. I certainly wouldn’t wince every time a grounder to 3rd headed his way. Or a grounder to 2nd. Or a flyball to RF, for that matter.
I would love
to see him get a full time shot if we ship Aki (obviously if Walker keeps playing like he has in AAA). I feel like he’d more or less deserve it, and as you already put it, hes already way way better defensively. Hopefully he gets a shot.
Same goes for Donnie Veal too,
Though to a lesser extent definitely. I think with his stuff hes way too early to give up on ( I know hes not included becuase of Major league time, I’m just saying, Im cautiously optimistic about him too). So maybe we dont have crazy impact talent at the highest level, but if Veal and Lincoln come up at some point and both are average major league pitchers this year (with way higher ceilings that Maholm or Duke), and Alvarez, Tabata, and Walker come up (at second base) and put up anything resembling their triple A numbers I think the pirates might improve more than you think.
I was just looking at Tabata's numbers
What is weird is he has a .400 OBP and 8 SB and has only scored 4 runs besides the one he scored on his own HR.
How is that even possible when he has Walker, Alvarez and Pearce batting after him?
Plus until recently he also had Van Every hitting .300 right after him as well.
by MarkInDallas on Apr 26, 2010 1:32 PM EDT up reply actions
I dont understand all the worry about tabata,
Obviously everybody wants his power to develop, and he’d be a way better prospect if it did. But I think that’s also undervaluing what hes capable of being right now. Sure, he might not ever be a 20+ HR guy, but Im sure everybody would take a 300 hitter who steals bases, gets on base 40% of the time, hits a ton of doubles, and plays pretty damn good defense as a left or right fielder. Is he a top 100 prospect then? No. But I do think hes still an everyday player, and a perfectly good option if you can get some of that power from a few other positions. Either way hes going to move runners, and hes going to score runs, and I think we could use more of that in Pittsburgh right now. Maybe he’s not the answer in the outfield permanately, but right now I still see him as a major improvement over milledge. I dont know, Im just not as down on his power as everyone else is. I understand it a little, but I certainly dont seem him as a marginal prospect if his power doesn’t develop as advertised.
For me it depends
if he can hit a ton of line drives in MLB or not. When I saw him in ST, I was a bit discouraged because all I was seeing were grounders. I just got the MiLB package so that I can watch some ABs and see how he’s getting his hits. Last night he was hitting some good LDs, although he did beat out an infield single that might have been different with a better shortstop.
by MarkInDallas on Apr 26, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
I think
it’s largely the anxiety because this organization just has no power, and so it’s very worrisome to project one of our corner OFs at 15 HR. This is where we really need Lastings to come around: if he can return to 25 HR power, and if Cutch is getting his annual 15-20, and Pedro’s giving us close to 40, then we can live with Tabata at 15 (and hopefully 20+). But a 45-HR OF would be pretty grim.
I don't know
If 40HR power is going to be realistic for Pedro. It seems post steroid testing 40hr seasons have been fewer and farther between. Last year there were just 5 guys hit 40hr.
Funny looking at last years HR leaders and the Nats had 2 guys hit over 33 and they still really stunk.
by eyeofhorus777 on Apr 26, 2010 2:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Ultimately, "power" is unimportant in and of itself.
Runs are runs. If your corner OF is putting a sufficient number of runs on the board through other means, then he’s a worthwhile starter even without power.
In contrast, if Pedro’s putting up 40 HR but batting .220 with a -20 glove, he’s not really that much of an asset, because he’s costing you as many runs in other areas as he’s putting on the board with his HR. (This is the Mike Jacobs scenario.)
How many guys have hit 40 bombs
and only.220? I’m not aware of anyone who has accomplished that feat.
by WestCoastBuc on Apr 26, 2010 2:48 PM EDT up reply actions
Dave Kingman hit 35 or more homers four times while hitting worse than .240. But yeah, I can’t think of anyone offhand.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 3:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Oh, and in the last year of his career, Mark McGwire hit 29 in 299 at bats while batting .187. That was a pretty remarkable season.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 3:33 PM EDT up reply actions
And Dunn twice hit in the .230s with 40 homers. I’m having all kinds of fun.
by Charlie Wilmoth on Apr 26, 2010 3:34 PM EDT up reply actions
Well then
if Pedro does it at least we’ll have something to brag about even if we never win a dang pennant.
by WestCoastBuc on Apr 26, 2010 3:57 PM EDT up reply actions
For me, the type specimen...
…has always been Tony Armas. In 1983, he had 36 HR… with a .218 BA and a .707 OPS (85 OPS+). Second in the league in HR, and he was an absolute millstone for that offense.
I was surprised to learn
that there were so many guys who came so close to the 40 HR/.220 mark. I would have figured around .240 to be the floor for someone pushing 40 HRs.
In Armas’ case that was a Fenway aided 85 OPS+ as the year before for the As, he had a nearly identical OPS of .708 and an OPS+ of 97.
by WestCoastBuc on Apr 26, 2010 10:25 PM EDT up reply actions
Rob Deer
How bout this…In 1991, he hit .179 with 25 homers and over 600 PA’s. Still managed to have an OBP above .300. Thats one of the best years ever.
Well, and I'm not a huge fan
of tying position to production. But, as I say, we’re not getting the power – or production – elsewhere on the diamond either. If Tabata’s a doubles machine, I won’t sweat the HRs so much, but we’re already looking at a team with no power at SS, 2B, or C (or does Sanchez have more pop than I’m crediting him for?), and not much at CF and either 1B or 3B. We’re running out of places where a productive hitter might play.
I totally understand
the worry about power, but I do think they’re options out there. Doumit offers average power until Sanchez arrives, and I do think Sanchez has 20 HR potential. I feel like he’ll be around there most years, especially when he fully matures. At first base I think Garret Jones can and will stick. He hasn’t been great, but Im very encouraged by the walks, and I feel that if the rest of team could actually get on base, he’d actually get pitched to. Then of course at third base Pedro should take care of any power issues there. And I do think Neil Walker has a chance to stick at 2B, and hes got 20 HR potential as well. Obviously, these are all projections, but I think they’re definitely definitely possible.
You don't NEED "power".
You need runs. If you generate those runs through doubles and BA and walks and baserunning, they’re worth exactly the same amount as runs generated through HR.
I'm including 2B in "power"
I actually wanted to figure out whether you could calculate effective power for guys like Morgan and Reyes who turn an awful lot of 1Bs into 2Bs through the SB. For most guys the SB is a useful tool; for some, it’s effectively part of ISO.
But I'll add
The last few games have illustrated the problems with a power-free lineup: repeated bases-loaded situations with just a run coming in, because no one can hit a damn base-clearing double, let alone grand slam. I mean, it’s a tiny sample, obvs, but I think it’s systemic when you just don’t have a lot of guys who hit the ball hard very often.
Well, there's no denying...
…that home runs are a very efficient way of generating runs. But if people just start repeating the “we need power” meme rather than focusing on a player’s overall contribution, that can lead to a lineup full of guys who hit home runs and do nothing else. Remember people this offseason posting that the team should go after Mike Jacobs and/or Hank Blalock? That’s an outgrowth of the myopic focus on HR that’s common among certain elements of the fan base.
Agreed
And those ways of thinking (we need power only) eventually just leads people to focus on what players can’t do rather than what they can do. Bobby Abreau doesn’t hit many homers but he does a TON of other things well to make him a very productive player overall.
Agree with the sentiment.
Whether he becomes the next Manny Ramirez or not, he’s still a nice return for Xavier Nady.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
Uneducated guess...
lotsa DPs with him on base. Indy’s website doesn’t carry GIDPs.
I dont think
that a 45 HR outfield is necessarily that bad, depending on how you get your runs. I definitely think Pedro has 40+ HR potential. Most people arnt hitting 27 bombs when they’re only 23 years old. You give him a few more years to mature and I feel like hes going to be sending tons of shots into the river.
As to the outfield, I think that a definite possibility for this team is winning on speed, especially with another guy like marte moving into the high minors. Thats two absolute burners in the outfield, and tabata’s no slow poke by any means. They’re going to play amazing defense, all three have the potential to hit for a high average, and tababa and Cutch both get on a base at a really good clip. If that trio makes it the majors, or even if Milledge sticks in left and can raise his average, the OF’s going to steal alot of bases and cause a lot of havoc in that regard. Also, I think you’ve got to keep garret jones in mind as well, who has 30+ potential. He hasn’t had a great year, but he hasnt had many pitches to hit because there’s not a single other power bat to worry about on the whole roster. Simply having pedro in the lineup I think makes Garret Jones twice as effective, because pitchers have to try and get him out and not just continually feed him stuff out of the zone. 60 Hrs between first and third is a definite possibility, and that makes less power in the outfield way easier to deal with.
Tabata = Ichiro Lite
I wish he was the real Ichiro or Heyward, but I’ll take Ichiro Lite over Milledge any day.
My thoughts on the players I've seen from this list
Alvarez: From what I’ve seen of him in Indianapolis, combined with what I’ve seen from YouTube, most of his plate appearances are more or less exactly like the one in the video. He takes a lot of pitches until he gets one he can really drive. It’s a bit surprising he doesn’t draw more walks – his approach is very passive. “Give me a pitch I like or I’m not swinging.” I’d guess most of his strikeouts are of the looking variety. (I wouldn’t know – I’ve surprisingly never actually seen him strike out.) I actually feel he needs to be more aggressive at the plate.
As for his D, it’s not good, but it’s not a -20 glove either. He has more range than should be humanly possible with his body type, but his real problem is that he doesn’t always take good routes. If I had to compare him to a 3B in the Majors right now, it would be Pablo Sandoval. Defense is good enough to stay at third, bat more than makes up for the runs lost to the glove.
Marte: That video was the first I’ve seen of him. Nice swing, and the ball does lots of things off his bat. That pitcher really got nailed – poor guy. He looks kind of awkward when he runs, but as long as he keeps getting that kind of speed from it, he could look like a cartoon character for all I care. I wish that video included some of him fielding.
Tabata: I’ve seen him live a few times now. It’s easy to think the power will come – the ball just explodes off his bat with a LOUD crack every time he hits it. He has a nice, compact swing that doesn’t have many holes. That said, it’s line drive swing for sure. He’s a liner machine – almost every ball that comes off his bat i lined hard somewhere. If he wants to hit home runs, he needs to get under it just a little bit more and put some backspin on it. I have a source (who I won’t name, because I didn’t ask their permission to do so) in Indianapolis that tells me the hitting coaches there have told him the same thing, and he doesn’t listen. That could be a red flag. Also, he definitely doesn’t look 21 – by both body build and by face. Not saying he isn’t, but if someone showed me a picture and had me guess his age, I’d guess 23 or 24.
Lincoln: I’m higher on him than most. His stuff is very, very good, sitting in the mid-90s with good movement, and he can locate it well. Has a nice change that can really fool hitters. Won’t be the ace he was supposed to be coming out of college, but I’ve heard a lot of talk about him being a back of the rotation starter. I think he’s at least a #3.
Walker: I’ve seen him play at Indy for 3 years now, and in the past 2 it was always the same: excellent defense (seriously one of the best third basemen I’ve ever seen in the defense department at any level), good power, but swings way too freely. This year, it’s like a switch flipped at the plate. Maybe he realized he’s not even a top 10 prospect on his own team anymore, let alone a top 100 in baseball. I don’t know. What I do know is, he’s being much more selective at the plate now, getting good pitches to drive, cutting his strikeouts and taking walks. While he doesn’t look as good at second base as I thought he would, I’m willing to cut him some slack since he’s learning just about every position on the diamond right now. With that in mind, he looks solid there. It might be aggressive of me, but if he keeps going all season like he is right now, I think he has a future as a starting second baseman. If nothing else, he’ll be nice insurance if the Andy LaRoche experiment fails there (and if we don’t keep Aki.)
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
I think that 5 players from this list will pan out to be extremely productive players for the Pirates: Pedro Alvarez, Tony Sanchez, Tim Alderson, Bryan Morris, Chase D’Arnaud.
The low level guys are harder to predict, im not sold on Marte but I do like Robbie Grossman and Quinton Miller
by 2010 will be the year on Apr 26, 2010 4:29 PM EDT reply actions
Am I correct in thinking
that Marte could actually be ready sooner rather than later?
I guess there’s no reason to rush the guy, but it seems like he’ll be in AA this year. Is there anything stopping him from reaching Pittsburgh in 2011 or 2012?
Actually, that video didn’t excite me – an active bat, what seemed like a lot of grounders finding holes in presumptively weak IFs, etc. But I’m just thinking about how he’s performing right now, and he’s not all that young – it wouldn’t be a huge rush to reach AAA in 2011.
Given our OF situation, there’s absolutely no reason to push him. But last year I thought of him as a relatively far-off player, whereas I’m now thinking he may be part of the first winning season.
Alvarez and lefty pitchers
Just a thought about the fact that Alvarez has struggled pretty badly against lefites in his brif minor league career so far:
What about a platoon with LaRoche, assuming LaRoche would provide enough value to stay on the roster? He’s not struggled against lefties, and in fact has hit them slightly better for his career (I know, Vlad, RHB regress to the mean.) Even if he does get successfully moved to second base, we’ll probably be carrying someone like Walker or another utility guy who could fill in at second in the vs LHP lineup.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
Given the number of other holes on the roster...
…I think we’d be better off either moving one guy to a different position or trading one guy for something else that we need.
Yeah, that’s kind of what I was saying.
Say Andy LaRoche gets moved to second. That’s cool, but it’s not like he’ll forget how to play 3B either. When we’re facing a lefty, put Alvarez on the bench and go to him as a pinch hitter. Put LaRoche at third. Have a utility guy (Walker? Of course, I guess if it were Walker he could just come in at third for Alvarez without moving anyone else) or middle infielder (Crosby?) play second. You’re probably going to be carrying either a UTIL or a MI on the bench anyway, this is just a way to get the best matchups.
http://fanhuddle.com/pittsburghpirates
I hope that they keep Alvarez in the minors until there’s at least a reasonable chance he can hit lefties respectably.
by MarkInDallas on Apr 28, 2010 1:52 AM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bucs Dugout
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
