Ask BA: October 10th, 2011
In this week's "Ask BA," Jim Callis compares Starling Marte and Robbie Grossman, elaborating somewhat on his criticism of Grossman last week.
8 months ago
Vlad
146 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Mostly what we've heard before
Interesting that he said they had “similar arms”, I thought Marte was supposed to have a cannon out there.
Except for Marte "potentially" having 3 plus tools
(arm, speed, and hit?) I don’t think those are potential, he already has those. Defense he surely has as well. The only potential is power, which he showed quite a bit of the last month or so.
To me he sounds quite low on both of these guys. I’m not sure why Grossman is a reserve instead of someone like Paul O’Neil; not all COF have to hit 40 HR.
O'Neill
Paul O’Neill had a pretty awesome ability to make contact and hit for power at the same time. Grossman doesn’t have either ability.
The larger point, that Grossman could be an average regular rather than a reserve, is valid, I think. The problem is that average(ish) regular is about Grossman’s upside, so not a lot of evaluators are going to talk about that as his likely outcome. (Same with Marte. Citing three plus tools and calling him a solid regular isn’t a slight at all. Considering that there’s still a fair chance that Marte’s strike zone control derails him completely, Callis’s confidence in him becoming a solid regular is pretty high praise.)
Paul O’Neill had a pretty awesome ability to make contact and hit for power at the same time.
Maybe, but if so, he wasn’t showing it yet when he was Grossman’s age. Last year, in Grossman’s age-21 season, he put up a .157 ISO. Through Paul O’Neill’s age-21 season, he’d put up the following single-season ISOs: .083, .122, .133, and .188. Only in one of those, the age-21 season, is he displaying any real in-game power… and in that season, he batted .265.
O'Neill
also didn’t have Grossman’s contact issues.
Kinda
bypassing you here epoc, because the tools comment confused me.
Unless I’m just embarrassingly wrong, the 5 tools are…
Hit (contact)
Power
Speed – basepath speed
Arm
Glove – which is interesting, because it involves speed, but includes actual glovework route running, jumps, and reading flyballs (for an outfielder) etc, but doesn’t include arm.
His glove is definitely plus, because regardless of route running and actually catching the ball, his speed is such an asset, that it’s plus. Even if it someone really wants to be staunch and hate on the other parts of glove, although I’ve never heard of that being an issue for Marte, he definitely has the potential to be a plus glove, or better.
His speed is definitely plus. That’s not really open for debate, although since I guess it baserunning is the true skill be measured here, he needs refinement. If it’s not plus, it’s 100% potentially plus, or, again, better.
His arm is slightly confusing. I’ve seen the thing in person and it’s an absolute hose. Like, “throw out a guy tagging from second to third by a step while standing in the right-center warning track” hose. However, the infamous Anup Sinha always maintained that Marte’s arm to him was average, that played up a bit due to good accuracy. While the “Marte’s arm is average” crowd is in the huge minority from what I’ve read and witnessed, maybe Callis is in that crowd, which would be interesting.
Same goes with his hit tool. Numbers bear out that his hit tool is clearly plus, or on its way to plus, but maybe a scouting report disagrees.
It’s odd, and somewhat troubling to read that, because I’ve been operating under the assumption that Marte possessed 4 tools that would end up as plus to plus-plus in the majors all things going fairly well, and then have average or above-average power for his position. The only thing holding him up was really, really bad plate discipline, that at least improved this year in the K% rate.
If Marte is substantially less toolsy and I think that’s an accurate assessment, his prospect status takes a big hit to me. I’d like more info.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 3:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Marte
I sort of agree with you in that I think he’s a potential five-tool player, but just because a tool isn’t plus doesn’t mean it’s not good, and I disagree that it’s indisputable that Marte’s got plus speed, defense, and hit tools. It would be entirely possible for a scout to think that any of Marte’s tools is above-average but not a true plus. That’s no slight at all. But (as you know) I do think you overrate Marte. Realizing that some of his tools might be above-average rather than plus might put you in a more reasonable frame of mind about him.
Right
That’s basically what I’m saying, but its not like there are those out there who feel like he has those plus or plus-plus tools across the board, or at least the potential for them.
From Jason Parks’s twitter
Great scout quote on CF prospect Starling Marte: “If Starlin Castro was a CF with Franklin Gutierrez’s glove; that’s his ceiling.” Not bad.
One, that’s an absolute superstar. Two, clearly Franklin Gutierrez has a plus glove, if not better. Part of that is because of his speed, and Marte definitely has at least 60 speed. I’m not sure how you could debate that, and with refinement he’s at least a 60 baserunner. For the offensive side, Castro has definitely has a 60 contact tool, if not better, and Marte has hit better throughout his minor league career, but that doesn’t take into account scouting reports and ARL. I guess maybe the arm is in question, but to the me that’s the only question mark, and with average power potential, he could still be a superstar.
Plus, if we aren’t being super conservative, Gutierrez has much better than a 60 glove, probably closer to 75 if not 80, and Castro probably has a 65 hit tool. If Marte learns to steal bases and run effectively on the bases, he could steal 50 bases, which is probably closer to 65 than 60. He still has a fairly low floor, even with that glove, because of his plate discipline, but I just feel Callis, reading between the lines, is low on Marte’s ceiling.
Being realistic though, I just don’t want to dismiss that, but if I have to, I have to because I think its incorrect. I’d rather just get more info.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 7:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t understand what your problem is here. Yeah, Marte has superstar ceiling, including (according to Callis) three potential plus tools. Nothing Parks says contradicts that, and I don’t understand why you’d be disappointed by what Callis is saying or think he’s low on Marte. If you think Marte has four plus tools, that’s fine, but there’s no rule that says Jim Callis has to agree with you.
I think it's the word "potential"
McTruth is saying that a guy displaying ample evidence of tools in the high minors can be considered to have them; it seems that Callis (and maybe you) is saying that, until they happen in the majors, they’re only potential.
I’m inclined to be skeptical of all prospects (how many can’t-miss have missed?), but there needs to be some distinction between guys who’ve merely shown indications of having a tool in the minors and guys who clearly have the tools to dominate, or do very very well, in the upper minors.
not exactly
What Callis is saying is that Marte’s tools don’t grade, for him, as good as MCTruth thinks they should. My personal opinion is that we should take what Callis says seriously rather than dismissing him because he disagrees with us.
I never
dismissed him.. You didn’t effing read anything I wrote bro. Honestly. Read below. It’s getting quite annoying.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
Seriously
love that this is in print.
Being realistic though, I just don’t want to dismiss that, but if I have to, I have to because I think its incorrect. I’d rather just get more info.
Read the bold.
The “if I have to” line? If someone put a gun to my head and said pick between Parks’s scouting report or Caliis’s scouting report, seeing Marte a half dozen times, I’m going with Parks’s.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions
sorry
Parks’s quote doesn’t in any way contradict anything Callis is saying. You are parsing the Parks quote in such a way as to indicate that Marte has a bunch of plus tools, but Parks (nor the scout he’s quoting) actually lays any grades on them at all. It’s entirely possible that Parks and that scout would agree that one of Marte’s arm, speed, hit tool, and defense are above-average but not plus. And it’s also very possible that Callis would agree that Marte’s ceiling is as a superstar and that Parks would agree that Marte’s likely outcome is as a solid regular.
You use the qualifiers “definitely” and “clearly” to apply to your personal gradings of Marte’s tools and then you say that if you have to dismiss Callis you will because you don’t agree with him. If I was misinterpreting you, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to “attack” you.
Right
Just want to be clear I haven’t just dismissed Callis’s comments. On the contrary, I consider them valuable enough that I want them clarified so I know exactly what he’s trying to say.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 11, 2011 12:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Lol
when did I ever say Callis doesn’t have to agree with me? I’m just saying Callis’s comments don’t jive with my understanding of Marte as a prospect. Since his comments, which were the size of a paragraph, were the exact opposite of both crystal clear and sufficiently in-depth, I’d like more info.
Basically, using Callis’s convoluted statements, he is seemingly going against the grain regarding Marte from my understanding of Marte as a prospect, which isn’t necessarily right. I want more clarification so I know if I’m actually in the minority regarding Marte’s “toolsiness” or if Callis is. Either way, I want to know why so I’m more informed, not because I think Callis to agree with me.
Honestly, this is gonna come across in a bad light, but what the heck Epoc? I’m at least personally convinced that I do an excellent job (at least I try) emphasizing that my opinion is just that, my opinion, and that it is far from fact or that I will always be right. In fact, I’m aware I’ll be wrong alot. In addition, I try to make it clear I respect everyone’s opinion and both want to and enjoy using others opinion to make my opinion more informed.
That’s all I’m saying here. I want to be more informed. Callis’s statements challenge my status quo, and rather than just dismiss Callis as an idiot or just blindly accept his opinion because he’s an “expert”, both of which are equally bad reactions, I want to know how they challenge it so I can adjust my status quo accordingly.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:27 PM EDT up reply actions
And to clairfy
Basically, using Callis’s convoluted statements, he is seemingly going against the grain regarding Marte from my understanding of Marte as a prospect, which isn’t necessarily right. I want more clarification so I know if I’m actually in the minority regarding Marte’s "toolsiness" or if Callis is. Either way, I want to know why so I’m more informed, not because I think Callis to agree with me.
When I say they are convoluted (it doesn’t make it wrong). Also “Which isn’t necessarily right” is referring to my understanding of Marte. I’m aware I could be wrong about Marte. I’m not trying to attack Callis’s opinion by saying it “isn’t necessarily right.” I was speaking of my own formed opinion.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:29 PM EDT up reply actions
O’Neil is different because he basically had two careers (Reds and Yanks). With the Yanks, sure he was awesome and BB’d a lot and K’d little while hitting ~20HR a year. That’s probably Grossman’s ceiling. For the Reds though he only hit .255-.276 with ~15HR a year but with better D and a handful of steals and decent walk rates. I think Robbie can be that type of player, which is fine. If he hits the juice or gets awesome protection, maybe he will turn into the Yankee version.
The problem I had with his report on Marte was the wording. Arm, Speed, and D aren’t really potential, they are just there or not. That’s a knock to call Marte’s potential and it’s also a knock depending on which tools he meant, since as I said, Marte clearly projects as at least a 4 tool guy since he’s never hit less than .312. And 58 XBH hits at 22 sure gives him power potential in my book.
Arm, Speed, and D aren’t really potential, they are just there or not.
Minor point of order: You can grade up on potential D if you think the guy has tools but needs technique work for better reads/jumps on balls or better pitch-framing or whatever.
This
Just think minor league SS’s with error problems. I’d agree with arm, but same thing happens with speed if you include baserunning/stealing technique like I do.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 3:26 PM EDT up reply actions
Yankee O’Neill is not Grossman’s ceiling, unless you use “ceiling” to mean 99th percentile outcome, in which case the term is meaningless. Grossman has shown nothing (neither performance or projection) to suggest he can hit 20 HR a year while striking out ~15% of the time.
As I said to MCTruth above, it’s entirely possible that Callis thinks that Marte’s speed, for instance, is above-average rather than plus. You shouldn’t take it as a knock. A plus grade is really, really good.
unless you use "ceiling" to mean 99th percentile outcome
I was always under the impression that that was what ceiling did, in fact, mean. Likelihood of reaching the ceiling and likeliest outcomes are, of course, different things. (This is not to be confused with “Any hitter can theoretically wake up and find himself hitting like Albert Pujols and fielding like Franklin Gutierrez, and any pitcher can start pitching like Roy Halladay”).
Not sure
I’ve always taken “ceiling” to indicate more like 90 or 95 percentile. I mean, any pro ballplayer, if absolutely everything came together, could be an All-Star. So I take ceiling to mean “best plausible outcome”: if the tools you see all come together, and if the weaknesses are minimized. Walker, at the 99th percentile, becomes a +15 run 2B and bats .300/.375/.450. But that’s incredibly unlikely. At a more realistic ceiling, he’s more like a +5 defender, .280/.340/.400, or maybe a bit more.
But as I say, I think that taking “ceiling” to its extreme is uninformative: Cedeno’s ceiling, at that standard, is flawless defense with lots of plus plays, and a 90+ OPS+. The raw tools may be there, but it will never happen.
How
is that uninformative. You can’t know what a 90 or 95 percentile unless you know what the 99 percentile is.
This about to get crazy theoretical, so I’ll just throw it out there that I have a B.A. in philosophy and I’m in the middle of my second year of law school :P. This is my forte and what I’m really passionate about.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions
99th-percentile outcomes are uninformative for exactly the reason JRoth said they are: at the extreme of the bell curve, everyone looks the same. Essentially, anyone’s 99th-percentile outcome is an all-star. Such projections say nothing about what a player is likely to become. We might as well say that Chase d’Arnaud can be Starlin Castro and Neil Walker can be Chase Utley.
Then
we define 99-percentile outcomes differently. I don’t define my 99th percentile outcome as Albert Pujols. You apparently do.
As long as our definitions are understood though we can be consistent and productive.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:33 PM EDT up reply actions
Because it's such an outlier
I shouldn’t get into this with a philosopher, but…
If you define “ceiling” as “Take 100 guys with equal talents, and the ‘ceiling’ is what the best of the 100 accomplish”, you’re saying very little useful about the other 99. Tails in baseball curves are very, very long. We’re coming up on 150 years of pro ball, 90 of “modern” ball, and there have been between 2 and 6 truly standout hitting talents (Ruth, Bonds, Wagner, Cobb, Gibson, maybe Williams). Was Willie Mays the same underlying talent as those 6, but only achieved 98% of his potential, or was he of lower talent, but 99th percentile? Who knows? You’re so far out on the tail that tiny wobbles seem significant.
I see on preview that epoc typed faster than I have. Damn 99th percentiler!
exactly
I think you said it better than I did. Props.
Read
above. My 99th percentile is defined differently. I don’t see Taillon’s 99th percentile being the same as say, Brandon Cumpton’s 99th percentile.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions
That’s not how it works. The 99th-percentile is the very top. By definition, it’s the same for every prospect. If there are differences between Taillon’s and Cumpton’s 99th-percentile they would be too miniscule to mean anything. That’s why it’s meaningless to talk about.
If you want to define it differently, that’s cool too, though. The point isn’t about 99th-percentile outcomes vs. 85th-percentile outcomes, per se. It’s about how useless it is to say that non-elite prospects could become borderline hall-of-famers. In practical terms, the reason 99th-percentile outcomes are dumb and meaningless is that they lead to conversations where you have to take seriously the contention that a guy like Robbie Grossman might turn into Paul O’Neill.
I agree
with everything but the last sentence. Grossman’s 99 percentile isn’t Paul O’Neill, even in my definition, in my and apparently Vlad’s opinion.
For us, the conversation is relevant. You clearly disagree, so I would agree with you that its irrelevant and meaningless to you and I respect that.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 11:16 PM EDT up reply actions
Perhaps you need to research Paul O’Neil’s non-Yankee seasons a little bit. You are getting harder and harder to take serious.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here. In O’Neill’s five full seasons with the Reds he had wRC+s of 100, 125, 100, 126, 100, and average 2.8 WAR per season. And that was the crappier portion of his career. I’m not clear on what you think I’m missing here. O’Neill was a really good player. It’s very unlikely that any non-elite prospect will be that good. Hell, Starling Marte is unlikely to be as good as O’Neill was with the Reds. It’s incredibly unlikely that a prospect without plus tools, like Grossman, will be as good as O’Neill was overall.
I agree O’Neill was a valuable player and I’m sorry, I didn’t mean Grossman would turn into the stud that Paul was for the Yankees. Who knows how he transformed into that. The general point I was trying to make was to dispel this notion that all COF are 35 HR mashers. Being average across the board can be pretty nice.
Maybe it’s just semantics. When I say “projects”, I’m assuming he has made the majors and made normal improvement rates from a 21 year old. Early O’Neill found a way to be an average-above RF without hitting 25+ HR and I think Grossman can have a similar overall impact.
agree
Just eyeballing it, it looks like O’Neill with the Reds was a .260/.340/.420 hitter or so. I think that works as an upside projection for Grossman. (Of course, O’Neill was also a plus defender during that time, which Grossman probably won’t be.)
This argument has come a long way from where it started, but initially I did agree with your overall point that Grossman could be an average corner outfielder without plus power. The problem is that without any plus tools, average is more like his upside than his likely outcome. I think that’s why Callis calls him a tweener and a likely reserve.
Go figure...
A philosophy major who ends up in law school…have trouble feeding the family with quotes from Wittgenstein?
Well if you can actually practice law it will put food on your table...
Problem is that many who go to law school go because either they think it will lead to easy money outside of the courtroom or they didn’t want to get a real job after graduating. Those who practice law seem to do ok.
Lol?
I went into undergrad with a plan to go to law school. I also have a history degree and plan on getting a PHD in history after law school so I can teach if I want to.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 11, 2011 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions
“I send someone shopping. I give him a slip marked ‘five red apples’. He takes the slip to the shopkeeper, who opens the drawer marked ‘apples’, then he looks up the word ‘red’ in a table and finds a colour sample opposite it; then he says the series of cardinal numbers—I assume that he knows them by heart—up to the word ‘five’ and for each number he takes an apple of the same colour as the sample out of the drawer.—It is in this and simlar ways that one operates with words.”
I can see how you’d have trouble feeding the family that way.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 11, 2011 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions
i suppose i always looked at it differently
from epoc’s comment below:
If there are differences between Taillon’s and Cumpton’s 99th-percentile they would be too miniscule to mean anything.
In my mind, it’s not miniscule, because I’d probably say Taillon’s 99th percentile is a Beckett (the good Beckett), while Cumpton’s is (just pulling things out) Westbrook or Wolf. While I suppose you think everyone’s ceiling is Halladay or Carpenter (small difference between those guys), I think of what you are calling 90-95 percentiles as ceiling.
That said, I’m not sure this interpretation is what people mean when they say ceiling, so this was a useful discussion to place that in context— it would be good to know.
by BurgherKing on Oct 10, 2011 10:52 PM EDT up reply actions
You do realize Walker has already bursted through your assigned ceiling, right?
.296/.349/.462 in 470 PAs….
I think you are confusing, like, 5 year average run with ceiling or peak
Another key point
Is a guy’s “ceiling” what he can do in his best season, or is it what his career looks like, or what his 3-6 year peak looks like?
I think it’s most useful to think in terms of multiyear peak, but then the term “ceiling” becomes misleading – his ceiling is 3 WAR/year, but he may well have two 3.8 WAR seasons.
I dunno, I define it as “reachable peak if everything goes right.” I thought that is how everyone understood it but if you’re talking about less than his peak and multi-year, you are clearly using a different definition. Also, ceiling isn’t what they achieve, so it can’t be a hindsight thing, it’s what they could achieve.
Cause here's the thing
Look at GFJ’s 2009. Was that his ceiling? I mean, did anyone, ever, think this was a guy who could hit 21 HRs with a .396 wOBA in 82 games? But it happened.
And I don’t think it’s useful to look at a guy like Jones and say his ceiling is a 42-HR regular season, because it’s essentially a fluke, an outlier that tells you very little about what will happen. He was damn near Pujols for 3 months. And surely Pujols can’t be accused of not reaching his ceiling, right?
That’s what I was saying before. If a Jones at his 99th percentile is approximately equal to Pujols at, say, his 95th percentile (and again, no one thinks Pujols has untapped potential; maybe there is or was an 11-WAR season in there, but not any more than that), then – as I said – it tells you almost nothing. That’s the thing. Anyone who’s good enough to hit a 99 MPH FB – or throw one – can, at the very outside, do amazing things. But almost none of them can sustain that. And that’s why you look at 85-90 percentile, or else 3-6 year peak, to get a feel for the most you can plausibly expect from a player.
Jones, if he has one more solid year (protected from lefties), could probably have a 3.5 year MLB peak at ~1.5 WAR/year. And I think that’s a good approximation of what you’d say his ceiling was back in the minors. Or call it “upside.” I don’t care. I’m just not interested in discussions that center around seasons like GFJ in 2009, because you can’t even think about those, let alone plan for them.
Ceiling is usually referring to a sustainable level of performance, regardless of how high that is, rather than fluke numbers compiled in one season or less.
There you go
Makes sense to me.
And I don’t think of that as describing “99th percentile”. Take 100 GFJs, watch their full careers, and one or two of them probably does better than the GFJ we have. But I don’t think it ever would have made sense to look at the guy and call his “ceiling” 2+ WAR/season.
As I said, tails get very long. 95% captures most of the potential variance without messing around with flukes and extremes.
The kind of guy I’m thinking about as a 99th percentile guy is Andre Ethier, who was seen during his entire time as a prospect as a probable fourth outfielder with no more than 10-15 HR power, and who developed into a consistent 120-130 OPS+ bat.
Bonds never hit 60 HR in the minors
so I guess we should take out all those seasons in the majors because he isn’t capable of achieving them, even though he did, but he can’t.
you're right
Grossman might hit 60 HR in a season someday.
yep
I think that a guy who hits 13 HR in 617 PA in his “breakout” season in A+ and who scouts don’t think projects for more than average power is unlikely to hit 20 HR a year in the majors. That’s just the kind of idiot I am.
99th percentile outcomes aren't meaningless
That’s what a ceiling is, again using reason (see the Albert Pujols, Franklin Gutierrez, Roy Halladay comment above).
Just gotta understand the bell curve that comes with it.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 8:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Grossman has shown nothing (neither performance or projection) to suggest he can hit 20 HR a year while striking out ~15% of the time.
O’Neill didn’t have a season where he hit 20+ HR until he was 26, and he didn’t have a season where he met both of your benchmarks until he was 30. Yankee O’Neill was no more unreasonable a ceiling for Grossman than it was for pre-Yankee O’Neill, and look how that turned out.
Grossman had 49 XBH this year, as a 21-year-old in the pitcher-friendly FSL. That’s the kind of power growth you’d expect for a guy who does project to have some 20-HR seasons in his future, somewhere down the road. Guys get stronger as they age, and some of those doubles start going over the wall.
by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 9:04 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
I don’t understand your point here. Sure, anything can happen. If that’s the type of logic that leads one to believe that Grossman can be Paul O’Neill, then I think the argument has run its course.
I’m not saying Grossman can’t have a couple 20 HR seasons if he reaches his peak. I’m saying he doesn’t project to consistently hit 20 HR a year. He has average power projection, but there’s nothing that says a 15-HR a year guy can’t hit 20 in a single season.
I think what he's saying is that you completely dismiss Grossman's chances of becoming like Paul O Neil
When the kind of thinking that causes you to dismiss Grossman becoming like Paul O Neil would….
Also dismiss the chance of Paul O Neil in minors becoming Paul O Neil in majors.
I understand that
I’ll probably never hit the lotto in predicting that a marginal prospect becomes a perennial all-star. I find that situation preferable to the one in which I believe that any marginal prospect could turn into a perennial all-star, but I guess that’s just a philosophical difference.
1) Grossman isn’t just “any marginal prospect”.
2) A guy delivering the best possible performance for a player of his physical attributes is pretty much exactly what’s meant by a guy “meeting his ceiling”. Even if Grossman were a marginal prospect, not all marginal prospects have the same physical ceiling.
Yeesh.
I’m not saying Grossman can’t have a couple 20 HR seasons if he reaches his peak. I’m saying he doesn’t project to consistently hit 20 HR a year.
Paul O’Neill didn’t consistently hit 20 HR a year. He did it only seven times in 14 seasons as a regular or semi-regular.
Saying that Grossman does not (in your opinion) project to consistently hit 20+ HR a year does not have anything to do with whether or not Grossman projects to have a career similar to Paul O’Neill’s.
58 XBHs doesnt necessarily mean power
it would for Curry or Dickerson. But with Marte, you have to assume that many of those XBHs were because of his wheels
Too far down on Grossman
His ability to control the strike zone may not translate to the upper levels because pitchers will have better command and no real reason to fear him.
Well, unless Grossman can continue to hit for average. Despite repeating the level, Grossman took significant strides forward this year in demonstrating two tools, hitting for power and hitting for average. Like Mr. E said just above, not being a true bopper shouldn’t relegate him to a “reserve” projection yet.
Obviously, Callis doesn’t believe he’s likely to continue hitting for average. Which makes sense, since Grossman strikes out a lot and won’t have a .360 BAbip at the highest levels.
It’s not just that Grossman isn’t a “true bopper.” It’s that (at least according to Callis) he doesn’t have any above-average tools.
Which makes sense, since Grossman strikes out a lot…
Grossman doesn’t strike out that much. He only had a 22.7% K/AB last year, below the 25% drop-dead line, and that number’s decreased in each of his four pro seasons.
Callis’s remarks would make more sense if Grossman were a no-power waterbug, since those guys often lose an unusually high % of their walks with promotion to advanced levels. Grossman had a .157 ISO last year, though, with 49 XBH as a 21-year-old in the FSL. That may not be big power, but it’s at least keep-you-honest power, as far as pitchers are concerned. If they just pump strikes into the zone, he’ll slap ’em to the gaps for doubles.
okay
He strikes out like 23% of the time. Whether that’s “a lot” or not, it doesn’t bode well for his future batting averages.
Callis’s remarks make perfect sense. If you disagree, that’s fine. But he’s not spouting nonsense or anything. He doesn’t think Grossman has the power or the hit tool to maximize on his great plate patience against pitchers with better control. I agree with him.
It's not just the rate, it's also the trend line.
22.7% is acceptable, but nothing special. 22.7%, with substantial improvement every year? That’s a totally different thing.
Personally, I’d see that kind of improvement in K rate as boding very well for his future BAs, since he won’t need to maintain as high a BABIP if he’s putting more balls in play (and showing power growth, to boot).
by Vlad on Oct 10, 2011 9:08 PM EDT via mobile up reply actions
So what do you expect Grossman’s contact rates to look like going forward? What do you expect them to be at the major league level?
There's
no reason to think Grossman can’t hit .280, walk 10-12% of the time an strikeout 18-20% of the time, while maintaining an ISO of .160-180. If that comes with above-average defense at a corner and above-average baserunning, then that’s a solid starter.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:36 PM EDT up reply actions
I don’t know whether you’re being disingenuous or not, but there are plenty of reasons to think Grossman can’t achieve those numbers.
1) (assuming you’re talking about K/PA when you say "strikeout 18-20% of the time) Grossman’s K rate in A+ this year was 18%, and his career K rate in the minors is 23%. Generally speaking, a player’s K rate gets higher as he progresses from A ball to the bigs, so there are solid reasons to think Grossman can’t maintain 18-20% K rates in the majors. He might, but there are plenty of reasons to believe he won’t.
2) He’s never hit for an ISO above .157 in his career, and scouts are saying he doesn’t project for better than average power, so there’s every reason to believe he can’t maintain a .160-.180 ISO in the bigs (where the average ISO is .140ish).
3) If Player X has a 20% K rate, 12% walk rate, and hits 15 HR in 600 PA, he would need a BAbip of .338 to hit .280. Grossman isn’t a plus runner, bats RH 1/3 of the time, and doesn’t hit the ball particularly hard, so there are a lot of reasons to doubt that he can maintain the .338 BAbip necessary to consistently hit .280 in the bigs, even if you grant that he could maintain a 20% K rate.
Everything
you just said seemed to validate what I was saying as a 80-90 percentile outcome for Grossman, maybe a tad lower..
Maybe .260-.265, 10-12% BB rate, 21-23% K rate, and a .145-.165 ISO. would be better and around a 75 percentile. I also think his tools are being a tad underrated, again seeing him myself.
I notice you left me alone up top about Marte. I don’t know why you ask for my opinion, then ignore it or attack it, and then attack me for questioning someone else’s opinion.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 11:10 PM EDT up reply actions
sorry, MCTruth
1) You didn’t, initially, say you were talking about a 90th percentile outcome. You said you didn’t see any reason to think he couldn’t post the numbers you suggested. I assumed that meant you were referring to a mean outcome, since there are obviously many reasons to think that a guy won’t post his 90th percentile outcome.
2) I agree that .260/.350/.410 is roughly Grossman’s upside.
Grossman’s K rate in A+ this year was 18%, and his career K rate in the minors is 23%. Generally speaking, a player’s K rate gets higher as he progresses from A ball to the bigs…
Grossman’s initially high K rate was, in all likelihood, evidence of a skill deficiency when he entered the pros, which he has been correcting with increased experience. Hence the dropping K rate and increasing walk rate.
He’s never hit for an ISO above .157 in his career…
Yes, because he’s 21. As you are no doubt aware, players tend to hit for more power as they age and their bodies fill out. This is particularly true for players with a high ratio of doubles/triples to home runs, like Grossman.
If Player X has a 20% K rate, 12% walk rate, and hits 15 HR in 600 PA, he would need a BAbip of .338 to hit .280. Grossman isn’t a plus runner, bats RH 1/3 of the time, and doesn’t hit the ball particularly hard, so there are a lot of reasons to doubt that he can maintain the .338 BAbip necessary to consistently hit .280 in the bigs, even if you grant that he could maintain a 20% K rate.
Your fundamental misreading of the situation seems to stem from the assumption that Grossman’s K rate will increase, rather than remaining static or decreasing further. If his contact rate remains the same or continues to improve, as seems more likely, he will rely less on BABIP in order to maintain a tenable BA.
Speaking of 25% strike out rate,
whither MarkInDallas?
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 7:19 PM EDT up reply actions
Charlie declined his option
You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.
So he's a FA?
I’d better call Smitty, fast – Mark won’t last long on the open market!
Free your ass and your mind will follow.
by cocktailsfor2 on Oct 10, 2011 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions
Next question is relavatory also
Callis’ answer to the question regarding the Oriole’s system reveals some interesting information and relates I think to this discussion. Callis favors stars in that almost all of the teams in the playoffs have both pitching and offensive cornerstones (and in some case two or three cornerstones) to build a team around.
Rating farm systems and prospects should be dependant upon the likelihood that a prospect will make a positive impact in the majors, meaning not only better than other prospects, but the end result better than his competition in the majors. I belive Callis point regarding star players is correct in that to win you have to have stars on your roster. His grading seems to give Marte a chance to be star but sees no such chance for Grossman. That makes sense considering Grossman would have to hit like Wade Boggs’ in order to hold down a corner outfield position. The chances of that simply aren’t very good. Especially since his only outbreak is repeating a level in the low minors.
It follows that we won’t see the Pirates system graded much higher than 19th or 20th without elite talent in the system. Taillion, Cole, Bell, and Heredia will start to get us there but the rest of the system still looks like complementary players at best, with Marte maybe an exception. And since the rest of the sytem doesn’t yield any difference makers how can anyone have issue with the Bucs propsect ratings for the past few years? Take away that top 4 and this system isn’t going to crack 70 wins.
Im not going to rehash
the point of the potential stars in our system, but we have guys that could be more than just complementary pieces in Allie, Marte, Sanchez, Grossman, Dickerson/Curry, Kingham (who I will continue to be very high on). Cunningham also has a shot at being something.
Thats what she said! - Michael Gary Scott
Floor
I think our top tier has a much higher floor than these guys, but agree that your list has high end potential.
I could feel his muscle tissues collapse under my force. It's ludicrous these mortals even attempt to enter my realm. ~~ Mike Tyson
Cunningham
has the 3rd highest ceiling of the guys you mentioned behind Allie and Marte. So in terms of potential stars, I’d put him fairly high on that list, although his bust rate is substantial (but may actually be lower than Allie’s).
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions
Allie
Probably doesn’t need saying, but IMO Allie has both a low floor and a pretty low most-likely outcome. His ceiling is great (whether you define that as effective SP or kickass RP), but I think there’s a very good likelihood that he ends up as a mediocre closer, inconsistent setup man, or marginal starter (and actually, probably not even that last – if he’s not a 95 ERA+ SP, they’ll put him in the pen).
I’m very down on Allie, but I feel as if even his boosters would roughly agree with the above.
Curious who you think has higher ceiling than Cunningham; I would have put his ceiling behind Marte, Sanchez, Dickerson, maybe Allie and Grossman. Well, maybe not Grossman.
Of the players mentioned, ranking purely on ceiling I would go..
Marte
Allie
Cunningham
Kingham (I’m pretty damn high on him also)
Sanchez
Dickerson
Grossman
Curry
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 3:20 PM EDT up reply actions
OK
I guess I just never thought Jarek had that kind of monster ceiling. Something to hope for, anyway (I’d viewed him basically as a guy who was far from sure-fire and whose ceiling was Grossman-like: if he works out, then you’ve got a position taken care of for 2-4 years, but you’d still hope for an upgrade).
Jarek Cunningham has the best pure bat in the system
in my opinion. Basically combining the contact tool and power tool, he bests Marte, Dickerson, Curry, Grossman, etc.
The dude has the swing and hand-eye coordination to hit .320 and 30 HR’s. The latter is probably more likely, half because his plate discipline would never allow him to hit .320, but I still think good plate discipline doesn’t necessarily equal a .320 average.
For Cunningham, I’d say a 85-90 percentile outcome, with plate discipline improvement, would be .290/.350/.540 or something like that, with 25 HR and a crapton of XBH’s, all from 2B, where he’s a below-average defender, or 3B where he’s average.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 7:42 PM EDT up reply actions
What
do you mean by “realistic?”
If I’m putting money on it, he never has more than a cup of coffee in the major leagues. He has injury problems, glove problems, and severe plate discipline problems. His floor realistically isn’t even a AAAA player.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 9:29 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, you kind of put it into words perfectly in the 2nd half of that statement
In a perfect world, yeah, maybe you’re right (the 85-90 percentile outcome) would happen.
By realistic…I meant what you think WILL happen with him. Do you think his plate discipline issues are more severe than Marte’s? Of course, that question doesn’t mean much because Marte brings a lot more to the table. All of Cunningham’s value seems to be in his bat and the lack of plate discipline is pretty problematic.
Well
I think Marte has better plate discipline that his numbers bear out. I feel he’s just so talented hitting the ball that he doesn’t need to wait on pitches on walk. I think he will walk at a decent level (he will never be elite) as pitchers become harder to hit. His solid strikeout rate supports my assertion.
Furthermore, drawing from this ESPN insider article about Robinson Cano might shed some light on what I’m saying. Quote
“When Cano was young, he swung at almost everything,” Newman said. “That was because he could hit everything. But over time, he’s really improved in that area. He’ll never be a player with an even average walk rate, but he definitely swings at better pitches.”
Now, for Cunningham. Look at these numbers. (Disclaimer, I’m counting via fangraphs’s game logs so I could be off ± 1 or 2 when it comes to games – won’t be off on walks)
Games: First 58
Walks: 7
Strikeouts: 59
Games: Next 27
Walks: 10
Strikeouts: 23
Fairly small sample size, but he was improving his walk rate significantly as well as small improvements in his strikeout rate. I feel like had he finished the season with his improving walk and strikeout rates, and maintained his ISO, he would have been in a top 100 prospect discussion.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 10:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I dunno about Cunningham
Because I just wonder if the tools will translate as he moves up. Not to mention, he seems to have more problems than Tabata staying healthy, which is a serious issue concerning all the question marks he has. And as you noted it is an extremely small sample size in which he’s shown a modicum of patience. We need to see a half year of that at least to see if he’s made any progress in that department.
I was reading this book (not sure if you’ve heard of it) called The Great American Baseball Card Flipping, Trading and Bubble Gum Book. Its a very funny book (the section on Hector Lopez is particularly good), and it talks about baseball players from the 1950’s-1970’s. Anyway, at one point they discuss this former hotshot Red Sox prospect named Billy Consolo. And it quickly became apparent that while Consolo had monster tools, he couldn’t do anything with it. Had tons of power but swung at everything and couldn’t hit breaking stuff. He had a howitzer for an arm but no clue where it would go. The author likens it to a cantaloupe in that its better to start with a small cantaloupe and have it grow, rather than have a series of large cantaloupe parts that never fit together…in a weird way, that makes sense.
I’m rambling here, and I’m not trying to compare Cunningham to a prospect from the Cold War, although I guess I’m doing it anyway. Until he’s able to harness those tools effectively (and staying healthy is a big part of whether we’ll ever find out), he’s just a very intriguing and very flawed prospect.
Right
which is why I’ve maintained, I’m only high on Cunningham because of his very high ceiling. His floor and very high bust rate keep in check that ceiling, and injury concerns, which are very real, are part of that bust rate.
I feel like, even with the other flaws, we’d be talking about a much different prospect right now had Cunningham stayed healthy his entire career, because presumably, he’d be finishing AA as a 21 year-old with prodigious power and potentially improving patience (say that 5 times fast).
I mean had he qualified, he would have had the highest ISO in the FSL at .258. For comparison, the closest person to him was a dude named Brad Glenn (.251) who played the entire season as a 24 year-old.
For more comparison, he would had the highest ISO in the International League, his FSL (where he played in a slight pitchers park) ISO would have been good for 10th place in the notorious hitters haven of the PCL. He would have been right behind Brad Eldred. To understand why I say the notorious PCL, that’s the reason Brandon Wood was such a fantastic prospect.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 12, 2011 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions
Huh.
Not sure how I missed that. Maybe the doubts just loomed so large that I didn’t give a lot of weight to his ceiling.
That's
my opinion. I’ll just add a few things to that. First, I’ve seen him 3 or 4 times in person, so there is personal input.
Second, while I never agreed with this, but there was a poster over at minorleagueball.com that made a top prospect list like two months into the season. I honestly don’t remember who it was, and his list was only decent, with a few questionable placements, but it wasn’t all the way out in left field at the same time. He had Cunningham (this isn’t a joke) in his top 25 at the time. Now, I’m not saying that to say that Cunningham should have been near that on a list (I even said so in the fanpost over at minorleagueball) but to point out it’s not like his talent is completely unrecognized.
The problem is he’s been so injured.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 9:50 PM EDT up reply actions
Jarek Cunningham has the best pure bat in the system??????????
i think youre being blinded by the power potential for this middle infielder… who wont be a middle infielder for long.
i know he has serious bat speed, but how in the world can you give him props about his hand eye coordination??
no disrespect, but WTF?
Cause
I’ve seen him hit bad balls quite frequently. He just swings at literally everything, which is a problem.
I forgot about Bell somehow, but Cunningham is second behind Bell in my opinion. Marte definitely has better contact than Cunningham, but not nearly the same power potential.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 11, 2011 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions
but hand-eye coordination? how can you see that?
do you study film of him? are you on the field during BP?
if anything, his hand-eye coordination is poor both at the plate and in the field.
like i said, not trying to disrespect you here. im trying to get you to explain why you think its above average.
josh harrison, thats good hand-eye, IMO… alex presley too because it has improved as hes gotten older.
cunningham’s K rate is as poor as Marte’s, yet Marte somehow gets on base way more frequently.
IMO, a low walk rate with high SO numbers is the complete opposite of good hand-eye
by white angus on Oct 11, 2011 10:01 PM EDT up reply actions
but hand-eye coordination? how can you see that?
You can extrapolate with reasonable accuracy from things like contact rate on swing. Those numbers usually aren’t commonly available for minor league players, though.
It works better as a proxy for that ability than K rate because it filters out guys who strike out because they get into deep counts from watching lots of pitches every PA. You might still get an inaccurate reading for a guy who genuinely can’t spot breaking stuff. But if a guy’s up in the 90%s (like Kendall in his youth, or Jeff Keppinger), he’s got good hand-eye coordination.
The dude
swings at everything, and still hits some of it. Then, when he hits good stuff that’s actually over the plate, he squares up and absolutely destroys it. That to me would indicate good hand-eye coordination.
I’m not sure what a low walk rate has to do with hand-eye coordination at all. It’s definitely a factor in a K rate, but again, so is simply discipline and chasing bad pitches, and Cunningham does alot of that. Cunningham’s inability to lay off bad pitches is what will be the death of him, not being bereft of hand-eye coordination in my opinion.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 12, 2011 10:17 AM EDT up reply actions
I'm guessing Vlad considers the ability to NOT move part of hand eye coordination?
I mean, you see the ball isn’t a good pitch, your hands decide not to move. The ability to take a pitch I think is something Vlad considers part of hand eye coordination, (correct me if I’m wrong Vlad)
That's a very good point
As I’ve presumably made clear, I think it’s easy to overrate the centrality of stars for competitive teams (Cutch + Walker > Braun + Yuni), but I don’t begrudge that as an organizing principle in rating systems. Especially since it’s a lot easier to project star talent than it is to project which merely above-average talents will turn into 3+ WAR regulars and which will turn into sub-2 WAR marginal starters.
IOW, even if you’re really good at projecting prospects ±1 WAR, there’s a lot more effective variability in average-looking guys than in potential stars: maybe Marte’s a ~4.5-WAR guy, maybe he’s a ~6.5-WAR guy, but either way he’s significantly above average. But the range for a Grossman merely goes from barely useful spare part to average. If he’s in a critical enough position, the latter offers considerable upside (hence my like for Sanchez), but for a guy in the corners or at 2B, it’s just not a game-changing upside.
Just to spell out that parenthetical
In case it’s not clear, my point is that Braun had a much better season than Cutch’s – MVP-level vs. marginal AS-level – but it was canceled out by the presence of a (basically) replacement-level hole at another positionª. Thus, a team that can field 2-4 WAR at every position doesn’t need any superstars (that is, 7+ WAR), just a few modest stars (e.g. 5+ WAR). If your MiL system has 30 guys who project at league-average and a handful of projected stars, that figures to add up to a better (or at least comparable) MLB team in 2-4 years than a system with lots of projected stars but very little depth.
The flip side, of course, is that superstars can hide a lot of holes. But my general stance is that there’s more than one way to build a winning ballclub, and that uniform competence gets you farther than a lot of observers seem to think.
ª needless to say, we had holes as well; I"m just saying that Walker is a nice piece, but no one’s All-Star. His presence, plus the presence of additional solid players, means that you require less from your very best players.
The flip side, of course, is that superstars can hide a lot of holes. But my general stance is that there’s more than one way to build a winning ballclub, and that uniform competence gets you farther than a lot of observers seem to think.
Most people prefer to build a team of non-uniform competence, all else being equal, because it’s easier and less-costly to upgrade a team like that. A two-win shortstop would be a two-win upgrade on Yuniesky (OK, OK, a win and a half), but a team that already has a two-win shortstop needs to pay (in some combination of money and talent) for a legitimate star in order to receive an upgrade of the same magnitude.
I get that
But in practice you see an awful lot of home-grown stars on teams with too many holes to fill. Every HoFer who never saw the playoffs was on a club(s) that thought it could easily and cost-effectively upgrade its marginal players, but somehow never got it done.
I absolutely agree that you can’t get it done by trying to field 13 3-WAR guys at the same time; you need at least a couple 5-WAR guys (who, I might add, will put up the occasional 6-WAR season), to put you over the top and to pick up slack from average players having subpar seasons. But I think that it’s a fallacy to think that, once you have a pair of 7-WAR guys, the rest of the pieces will fall into place. You need a lot of regular players to have a winning team: you could have 4 3-WAR position players, 2 3-WAR SPs, a 3-WAR closer, and a couple of 7-WAR studs (position doesn’t matter), and if the other 4 guysª are bums, you’re looking at a .500 team.
BTW, I realize this seems like a flip of our argument last week about “good all over”. But my position is that you shouldn’t freak out too much about having huge studs at the top or some holes at the bottom. Unless fortune favors you with a Pujols, you’re better off (IMO) getting big talent when you can and making sure not too many IPs or PAs go to bums. Three Neil Walkers are worth more than Braun and 2 Yunis. And upgrading from Yuni is harder than it looks; look at how much trouble we’ve had filling 1B, a position that should be much more easily filled than SS, C, or CF.
We’ve all been disappointed that NH’s deep, expensive drafts haven’t yet produced any breakout talents, but what they have done is to produce a remarkable stable of (potentially) average MLers, meaning that, when Heredia and Taillon arrive, they may find themselves surrounded by 3-WAR players at every position and rotation slot, and their 6-WAR talent takes the team to 90+ wins.
ª I’m basically going on a model where you’ve got ~13 important slots to fill: 8 position players, 4 SPs (the 5th is almost always a wash), and a fireman. Obviously other configurations are possible, e.g. 4 really good RPs with no standouts.
making sure not too many IPs or PAs go to bums
The problem is that you can’t ensure this. There are always going to be a certain number of players who either get hurt or unexpectedly have a shitty season (by their standards) in the middle of a successful career. To successfully pull off the type of season you’re talking about, you need to have a significant amount of luck… and I don’t like relying on a plan where something that substantial is totally out of my hands.
[Very deep teams can, of course, compensate for this somewhat by throwing replacements into the breach as guys get hurt or fall apart, but you’re still going to have wasted PA/IP going to crappy guys before you make the decision to pull the plug on them.]
Luck?
Luck is assuming that your aging, 8-WAR super stud can break his wrist and miss fewer than 15 games and have no rehab curve. For an 8-win guy, just one DL stint means giving up nearly an entire win.
By contrast, a team of 13 NFWs can afford to lose a cumulative year of production and find itself just 3 wins down. If there are decent bench options, less than that.
To be clear, you need (in addition to a couple of 5-WAR guys; I’m under no illusion that you can win big with a uniformly just-above-average team) “average” players with ceilings a bit above. Some years Neil Walker will be a little hurt, or a little unlucky, and you only get 1.8 wins from his position; but other years, he’ll have a hot month with no cold ones, and he’s good for 4 wins. If his best year is just 3 wins, then your team-wide average is going to be closer to 2 wins.
I’m not aware of any evidence that superstar players are uniquely immune from lost seasons. I guess the argument is that 2 months of a 9-win player is worth a full season of a Walker, so that relatively few seasons are truly “lost”.
I think you are really being optimistic
I don’t think we have very many, if any besides Marte, offensive players in the system who project to be 3 WAR players. We have players whose 90th percentile outcome is a 3 WAR player but very few who project on that path. I think offensively we have a system filled with players who project as replacement level talent and our prospect rankings continually reflect that. In that regard I think Neal has done a poor job. If Robbie Grossman and Jarek Cunningham are bright spots in your system, both of whom are much more likely to not reach the big than be 3 WAR players there, than you are in trouble.
I don’t think we have very many, if any besides Marte, offensive players in the system who project to be 3 WAR players. We have players whose 90th percentile outcome is a 3 WAR player but very few who project on that path.
In fairness, the situation WRT pitching is much rosier.
The imbalance drives me nuts
Because I’m not really convinced that all of these “extra” arms can really be flipped for position players. It seems like a no-brainer, but I just don’t see it happening.
Don't entirely agree
Marte projects comfortably above 3 WAR, although some of that comfort comes from his defense (i.e., his bat may not be all that great, except that it will be a defensively premium position). I’m still bullish on Sanchez, and I think that, again with his defense, he can comfortably be in the 2.5-3 WAR zone.
Combine that with players in hand, and you actually have 5 out of 8 position players above average by 2013, with hopes that Pedro comes around. As I say below, I wish that there were more position depth in the minors, but we do have a fair number of guys who can at least fill holes (e.g., d’Arnaud, Cunningham, Mercer), and maybe some of the arms can be turned into SS, 3B, or 1B. And on the pitching side, we really do seem to be approaching a situation in which we’ll have a legit 1/2 and 3-4 legit #3s behind them. Having a Maholm-grade SP as your worst starter is worth an extra 2 wins relative to typical performance. We should also end up with a plus bullpen.
IOW, we may be a little thinner in the starting 8 than I’d like (especially if Pedro never comes around), but the excess depth in pitching should compensate.
Combine that with players in hand, and you actually have 5 out of 8 position players above average by 2013, with hopes that Pedro comes around.
Which five? Cutch, Walker, and…?
Ya
seriously. The reason we didn’t make the playoffs last year is because McCutchen posted a WAR of 5.7, Walker posted a WAR of 3.0, and then no one else posted a WAR above 2.2 (Morton posted a WAR of 2.2).
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 11, 2011 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions
Tabata
then Sanchez and Marte.
I’m assuming that the guy who put up 2.1 WAR in 102 games as a 21-y.o. rookie will be capable of averaging 3 WAR through his 20s. Maybe he won’t. Maybe McCutchen blows out his ACL Christmas shopping this winter. Maybe Walker gets into a fight with his brother in law at Thanksgiving and Kelly gives him a career-ending concussion. Time and chance happen to us all. But I don’t think I’m wishcasting Tabata as a (slightly) above average COF, nor Marte as an above average CF. I recognize Sanchez at this moment is the longest shot, but his upside is clearly average C or a bit better.
No worries
I didn’t think you were mocking, but I wasn’t clear if you were being (unnecessarily) skeptical about Tabata.
I looked at his season, and noted that he batted nearly as well as his rookie year, despite the missed time, bad leg(s), etc. I actually take that as a pretty good sign. I wouldn’t be surprised in the least by a 4+ WAR breakout in 2012. Also wouldn’t be surprised by a mildly disappointing 2.3 win season, either, but that’s how it goes….
I didn’t think you were mocking, but I wasn’t clear if you were being (unnecessarily) skeptical about Tabata.
I thought Tabata was the most likely answer, but I could also see someone trying to make a case for Presley or even Lee, so I figured I’d better get clarification.
I could see either of those scenarios as plausible outcomes for Tabata.
Gotcha
There’s a plausible world in which Presley becomes a perennial 3-WAR guy and Tabata never puts it together, but I"m not putting any money down that we live in it.
no need to choose
You could say that between Tabata and Presley we have a decent chance of nailing down one of the outfield spots. I’d bet that we won’t get 6 WAR from Cutch and 3 from each of Marte, Tabata, and Presley, though.
Anyway, there’s a fair amount of counting on good breaks here — and not catching any bad breaks is itself a good break — but it’s good to see that there is a path to our being decent at the majority of positions (and it doesn’t even count on Pedro). But the lack of depth in the infield is concerning.
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 11, 2011 7:59 PM EDT up reply actions
Absolutely
There’s a very likely world in which our best IF in 2013 is a 2.1-WAR NFW. All you can do is hope.
Thing
is though Marte could be worth more than 3 WAR. The OF won’t be the problem, it’s finding a 3B, SS, 1B, and C for the future, along with a whole damn pitching staff.
Pedro is a big key. If he becomes a 4-5 WAR guy, then we could be ready as early as 2013-2014, if not, then it could be a while still.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 11, 2011 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions
100% agree
Well, I’m a little more sanguine about pitching, but yeah. By 2013, we could have a 15-win OF, without anyone playing over his head. Combine that with a good Pedro and mere competence at the other IF positions, and we get 25-30 wins before we even talk about pitchers or the bench (which, again, I think may be a real strength by then).
Really
by 2013? I mean the remnants of the Altoona four will be pitching in the major leagues by then and presumably have some experience, but at absolute best Taillon is pitching as a rookie (and I doubt he is) and I’d argue the same with Cole (although he may jump to one level ahead of Taillon at some point).
Basically for either of them to be in the majors in 2013, they will need to finish next year at AA, and I don’t see much of a chance of that happening for Taillon.
More likely, I’m looking forward to the say 2016 pitching staff that will feature a 24 year-old Taillon, a 25 year-old Cole, and a 22 year-old Heredia (Man he’s young!) headlining the rotation.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 12, 2011 10:22 AM EDT up reply actions
I think you misunderstood
I’m not saying we’re a powerhouse in 2013, because we won’t have amazing pitching. But 30 wins from position players gets you close to 80 wins total; we don’t need Heredia, Taillon, and Cole at their peaks to convert that into an exciting team.
It’s a shame that our position players are coming at different times fro hour best pitchers, but them’s the breaks. Tabata, Marte, and Sanchez, at least, figure to be at their peaks (and in Pirates uniforms) for part of the prime of our pitching staff.
When I said “may be a real strength by then”, I meant the bench. Is that the source of confusion?
Basically
we all agree we need to resign McCutchen. Honestly, I’ll get ripped apart here, but if an extension looks unlikely, we should keep our eyes and ears open for a deal.
I’m not advocating actively shopping him, but just the way our windows look to be realistically lining up. Then again, all we need to freakin do is sign a big name free agent and this current window looks very solid.
Imagine if we could add like Pena and a solid SP, or (dreaming away) Jose Reyes to a 4 year deal or something like that.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 12, 2011 2:08 PM EDT up reply actions
You shouldn't get ripped apart for that
If he gets really disillusioned with how long the rebuilding takes (understandable) and shows no real interest in staying, then its the right move. Relatively cheap guy who is a very good all-around player…yeah, he’d fetch a pantload I’d say.
Yep
fair enough. I thought you were talking about 5 on our current roster.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 11, 2011 2:30 PM EDT up reply actions
Lord, no
I do think that, with a bit of good luck from our MiLers, we could end up with a very solid bench in a couple of years: Presley, Gorkys (or Grossman), Harrison, d’Arnaud (or Mercer), and Cabrera (or… the other one) makes for a very capable set of backups, the kinds of guys who don’t hurt you when the starter is out for 15 days, and who can fill a few different rolls (defensive sub, PR, PH).
Of course, that depends on not needing any of them to be below-average starters….
That makes sense considering Grossman would have to hit like Wade Boggs’ in order to hold down a corner outfield position.
No, he wouldn’t. League-average RF for the NL last year was only .271/.345/.449, and LF was even lower at .259/.328/.421. Now, that’s all batters, not just starters, but it’s still nowhere near a typical Wade Boggs line.
Plus
Grossman projects as an above-average fielder at a corner, if not better.
Da'Sean Butler - A Mountaineer Legend
by McCutchenIsTheTruth on Oct 10, 2011 11:14 PM EDT up reply actions
Wade Boggs career line is .328/.415/.443
Yeah, subtract 60 points from each and with Grossman’s expected defensive performance, we’d still have an average to above average outfielder still. He hits like Boggs and we’re talking about a perennial all-star, not a guy just holding down an outfield spot. I mean, that kind of bat is hall of fame quality, even at first base, (don’t believe me, Eddie Murray put up a lower OPS and OPS+ than Boggs and made it to the hall of fame, and that’s with a SLG filled OPS and OPS+, Boggs was almost certainly even better in more advanced methods like wOBA and wRC+ and still made the hall)
)
mostly off-topic
But Callis calls a certain annoying Brewer the hottest postseason he’s ever seen in person, with a .500/.577/1.000 line so far. Lloyd McClendon laughs at that. .727/.750/1.182, baby!
Not actually affiliated with whygavs.
by WHYG Zane Smith on Oct 10, 2011 3:24 PM EDT reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Will Smith shows why making your big league debut at Yankee Stadium is less than ideal
- Steinbrenners selling the Yankees? Family denies New York Daily News report
- The Juice: Brandon Phillips flip sets up Todd Frazier walkoff for Reds
- Josh Hamilton makes great catch, destroys part of fence at Safeco Field
- Something’s amiss at the Big 12 championship
