Top Prospects, part 4: The positional prospects
| 2010 | Top Prospects | 4 | Position Players |
| 1 | The Injured | 5 | Pitchers 1 |
| 2 | Fringe Position Players | 5.5 | Pitchers 2 |
| 3 | Fringe Pitchers | 6 | Santana & Recap |
Finally, after going through a few preliminary exercises, we begin the real prospect list. These are offensive position players who are real prospects - guys who look like they should be parts of the Indians future. I intentionally say 'parts' because not all of these guys look like they might be stars, but they all look like they should (or could) play a role in Cleveland. So without further ado (as before, ages are as of 7/1/09)...
Michael Brantley (22.1, MLB) - I talked about this before, but there is reason to suspect Brantley very stealthily put up his best season. I continue to expect Brantley to begin 2010 in Cleveland because of the maturity the front office and coaching staff sees in him. He brings speed and superior contact ability and an awful lot of potential development with him if that is the case.
| M Brantley | aOPS | BB/K | Net | ProS |
| 2007 | 763 | 1.28 | 55 | 6.62 |
| 2008 | 767 | 1.85 | 58 | 7.18 |
| 2009 | 821 | 1.23 | 76 | 9.08 |
Matt LaPorta (24.5, MLB) - LaPorta also had a strong year. It would be nice to see him add some steady power to Cleveland in 2010 and beyond.
| M LaPorta | aOPS | BB/K | Net | ProS |
| 2007 | 1271 | 0.27 | -3 | 9.48 |
| 2008 | 952 | 0.65 | 22 | 6.37 |
| 2009 | 951 | 0.75 | 23 | 7.40 |
Nick Weglarz (21.5, AA) - I think we all hope/think that Weglarz has another level he is capable of, that sometime soon he is going to break out as one of the best power prospects in baseball with 40 HR potential. After a disappointing, injury and Olympic disrupted 2008, Weglarz had something of a bounce back season. His overall line was brought down by not likely to be repeated .249 BABIP, but his peripheral numbers were still solid across the board. But the breakout is still waiting...
| N Weglarz | aOPS | BB/K | Net | ProS |
| 2007 | 910 | .634 | 3 | 7.17 |
| 2008 | 868 | .910 | 27 | 5.97 |
| 2009 | 917 | .962 | 28 | 7.78 |
Lonnie Chisenhall (20.7, AA)
A lot of people questioned the selection of Chisenhall in the 2008 draft. Not many are now. Chisenhall emerged this past season as one of the top corner infield prospects in the game. Scouts love his stroke, quants like his numbers. I would love to see him turn into a premier corner defender, but that might be asking too much. For now we can enjoy him making the transition from short-season ball to Akron successfully in a single season.
| L Chisenhall | aOPS | BB/K | Net | ProS |
| 2008 | 874 | 0.75 | 23 | 6.87 |
| 2009 | 883 | 0.46 | 5 | 7.52 |
Carlos Rivero (21.1, AA) - There is a lot to like about Rivero. He's only a few months older than Chisenhall, has managed to stay at SS, and has a full season of AA under his belt. But he has yet to put together a really satisfying season. He also has the disturbing trend of underperforming what he "should have" done for three consecutive seasons. The last two years he has particularly struggled against RHP. These are things it would be nice to see change in 2010.
| C Rivero | aOPS | BB/K | Net | ProS |
| 2007 | 731 | 0.56 | -7 | 6.08 |
| 2008 | 791 | 0.43 | -15 | 7.08 |
| 2009 | 738 | 0.69 | 11 | 7.22 |
Lou Marson (23.0, MLB) - Did you know Marson is six years younger than Kelly Shoppach? I didn't. Marson struggled after coming over from Philadelphia last season, but he was coming off more than 2.5 years with an OBP over .370. Marson is not going to hit for much (if any) power, but if he can hit .300/.365/.385 in Cleveland while providing good plate skills, that is plenty valuable. And again, he was only 23 this season.
| L Marson | aOPS | BB/K | Net | ProS |
| 2006 | 703 | 0.60 | -4 | 5.72 |
| 2007 | 768 | 0.65 | 5 | 6.80 |
| 2008 | 753 | 0.97 | 18 | 7.38 |
| 2009 | 699 | 0.68 | 4 | 7.65 |
Wyatt Toregas (26.0, MLB) - OK, so Wyatt Toregas is never going to make an All-Star team. But he is a backup major league catcher now. And he costs the league minimum. There is a lot of value in that. How good of a backup Toregas is depends on how well his bat adjusts to the big league level. His minor league track record has been inconsistent, but has shown a fair amount of power when he adjusts to a given level. The Marson-Toregas combination should be a pretty good defensive backstop pairing as well.
| W Toregas | aOPS | BB/K | Net | ProS |
| 2006 | 743 | 0.56 | 0 | 5.38 |
| 2007 | 733 | 0.60 | 5 | 5.22 |
| 2008 | 849 | 0.62 | 11 | 7.15 |
| 2009 | 790 | 0.37 | -12 | 6.17 |
Up Next: Interesting pitching prospects
0 recs |
25 comments
|
Comments
Nice to have some core guys to get behind. Is LaPorta technically a rookie anymore?
Forgot how young Carlos Rivero is… appreciate you pointing that out.
I owe Adam a beer for setting me straight on Brantley and LaPorta. I thought they were both sort of disappointing and Adam’s analysis has set me straight. I’m on the Brantley bandwagon, finally.
by afh4 on Dec 17, 2009 11:45 PM EST via mobile reply actions
If you look closely, you’ll notice that based simply on Progress Score, LaPorta is actually the #6 offensive prospect, behind Santana, Brantley, Weglarz, Marson and Chisenhall. Santana is the total package. Brantley has youth and to a lesser degree defense on his side. Weglarz has youth. Marson gets a big boost because he’s a catcher and a year and a half younger than LaPorta. Chisenhall also has a little youth and a little defense on his side. Strictly based on the offensive performance side, LaPorta is only beaten by Santana.
Excellent list and excellent point on Brantley.
Brantley also had a flukely low .288 BABIP last year. There’s no way a guy with his speed repeats such a low BABIP.
by Alex Trebek on Dec 18, 2009 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
Brantley has youth and to a lesser degreedefenseChris Gimenez on his side
"You are an LGT success story" -- Jay
by Turkmenbashi on Dec 18, 2009 11:28 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I see that there are two catchers on this list, but I actually think that the kid who caught at Akron last year, Santana, might be just as good if not better. My opinion.
It’s my short acronym for Progress Score. For offensive players it reflects a combination of age, level, performance and defensive position. A higher number is better. For pitchers it is a considerably more complicated formula, but it is basically based on age, level, underlying positive indicators (K%, BB%, GB%), performance (luck/park adjusted FIP and ERA) and health (GS and IP). Again, higher numbers are better.
Jay first developed it a few years ago and we have tweeked it some since, so he might be able to speak better about it than I can. But the basic idea of it as a metric is to identify who is worth paying attention to based on their performance and their likelihood of their value based on their development status and defensive ceiling. My rankings throughout this series are based heavily, though not exclusively, on Progress Score. I think it does a pretty good job of separating the wheat from the chaff in most cases.
I’ve never done a big hairy definitive post about Progress Score, along with Adam, and I’ve been procrastinating it for about a year. Partly, I’m still thinking about tinkering with it. Adam has already tinkered with the pitching formula, and I’d like to give a closer look at what he did and the changes do.
I also think generally, for hitters and pitchers, that the formula doesn’t penalize an older player enough for being in the low minors, so a guy like Niuman Romero starts to look legit. If a guy is 24 at Lake County, it doesn’t matter much if his OPS is 925 or 1150, but the current formula thinks it matters. The problem with using only basic arithmetic in a formula is that all relationships end up being strictly linear, and of course not everything really is linear.
I also had toyed with the idea of making it more like a plus/minus system, where an okay prospect is zero, whereas now it’s more like zero-to-ten. (Those are not hard limits, but almost every prospect is within zero to ten.)
For those who haven’t seen this before, the basic conceptual formula is:
Progress Score = Production (pitching or hitting) + Positional Value + Level + (constant) – Age
The specific formulas set the constant so that the range and center end up around where we want them to be, and so that various inter-variable relationships are established where we think they should be. For example, two years of age is equated to one level of advancement and (for hitters) also to 120 points of (neutral) OPS (which arguably is not enough). And as Adam said, it gets even more complicated for pitchers.
The problem with using only basic arithmetic in a formula is that all relationships end up being strictly linear
I actually toyed around with a few non-linear elements in the pitching formula this year, but at least for now, left them out. There should be some non-linearity involved because talent is not evenly distributed. If you have a guy like Brantley, whose strikeout rate last year was more than 2 standard deviations from the norm, that to me should, in the context of the formula, worth more than twice as much as a guy who is one standard deviation above average. To fully implement that approach took more work than I had time for back in September, though.

by 
























