Kevin Goldstein's Top 11 Indians Prospects

Not many surprises here. LaPorta and Santana are 1/2 and both are given five stars. Weglarz is third with four stars, and then there is a massive grouping of three star prospects that includes Miller, Mills, Rondon, and Huff. Goldstein has a lot of nice things to say about the depth in our system, pointing out that no prospect in our top 11 has fewer than a three star rating.

about 1 year ago Cap'n Snegiryov 117 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I’ll take this one as the FS that will get saved.

I’m a little surprised in the separation between Mills and Wegz. Clearly, I’m enamored of both of these guys and Weglarz is actually probably my favorite player in the whole system.

That said, they’re similar players (all bat, no field) and I feel like Mills’ second half production more or less pulls him neck and neck with Weglarz’s age. Maybe I’m underestimating the 15 month or so age gap (which is easy to do-that’s a massive difference) but it just sort of seems like either Mills is a 4 star with Wegz or they’re both 3 stars.

Part of this is the fact that I’m nervous about so much of Weglarz value being tied up in OBP.

That said, I’m predicting 25+ HRs for Weglarz this year.

by afh4 on Feb 4, 2009 1:53 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Will you be listening to Smoke Signals with Weglarz tomorrow?

by Roger Dorn on Feb 4, 2009 5:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My post-Marte thing is trying to ignore minor league counting stats. (Motivating factor: Marte’s signature 2005 season? If it had featured 16 HR instead of 20, how much different would it actually have been? And how much differently would you have thought of him? I know it’s prejudiced my expectations.)

So I’m looking at Mills and Wegz using MLEs. Here’s what I see.

Their K-rates are not particularly telling to me. 23.7% for Mills, 22.0% for Wegz, and Wegz’s advantage carries through the L/R splits. Mills has a marginally better LD%, and it holds up better against lefties, but it’s not a deal-breaker by any stretch. The hey-check-this-out difference is BB/K:

PLAYER: BB/K, vs. LHP / vs. RHP

MILLS: 0.28, 0.15 / 0.35
WEGZ: 0.51, 0.28 / 0.63

Mills is more dangerous — right now. But Wegz is the tougher out by far, especially against RHP. I guess you might say that Mills’s power is probably real, but there’s a question as to whether he’ll be effective enough to use it. Whatever power Wegz ends up with, I think his discipline gives him a much better chance of translating it to the bigs.

by fleerdon on Feb 4, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs

So your new approach is to only comment when you can really knock it out of the park? You’re like Eduardo Perez in 2006.

by NickFantana on Feb 4, 2009 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

can we trade him to the Mariners too?

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Feb 4, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually no, my new approach is to comment rarely. All part of my 2009 resolution to be more like Erik.

by fleerdon on Feb 4, 2009 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You should try an extended leave of absence, by the way. You come back, and every single thing on the page is new. You’ve gotten so far behind that you feel wholly free of the obligation to keep up.

I have a similar relationship with T-Mobile.

by fleerdon on Feb 4, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

that sounds awful

by Brick. on Feb 4, 2009 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But I miss you.

by afh4 on Feb 4, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

All fair but Mills’ second half was pretty monster.

Is there any reason not to look at a second version of ISO that involves subtracting OBP from SLG? For Mills and Wegz, I think this highlights a key difference in their games, if it doesn’t eat it self mathematically.

by afh4 on Feb 4, 2009 9:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I really really like Beau Mills. There’s a possibility, I guess, that he was seeing the ball so well that he just didn’t bother walking — Minor League Splits says he was even a little unlucky last year. But mostly what I think he showed was that he’s better than A+ pitching, and I’m hesitant to draw any further conclusions.

My larger point, about the counting stats: If Wegz hadn’t gone to the Olympics last year, and if he had had a really hot couple of weeks and hit three or four more dingers … I mean, it wouldn’t mean anything other than that he had a hot streak, but I really feel that fewer people would be expressing doubts about his future as a power hitter.

I still have no idea what ISO means. Like, I know the definition, but I know the definition of linear algebra too, and I can’t use that.

by fleerdon on Feb 4, 2009 10:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s basically why I’m making up my own version of ISO. To pretend like I understand it.

I see what you’re saying, and I wouldn’t call myself a Wegz doubter. It’s just that what Mills did isn’t as good, because he’s not as young, but when you factor in this being his first pro season, I think it’s nearly as good, very nearly.

Maybe the LF/1B thing is the difference. I guess all I’m saying is it’s hard to really say one is a better bet than the other right now. Their skill sets and career arcs are similar.

by afh4 on Feb 4, 2009 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

What you really want to do is divide slugging by batting average, which is the same as dividing total bases by hits. That gives you a measure of how hard the contact is, when he’s making contact. The subtracting thing, I don’t know what that’s telling you.

by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

So, it still looks like it’s telling me what my gut is telling me-that Mills has exhibited a better ability to make hard contact. He’s checking in at around 1.75, Wegz at 1.60.

by afh4 on Feb 4, 2009 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But you’re forgetting the most important stat for prospects.

by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 11:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I mean, I’ve mentioned it like 10 times. I’m just sort of thinking around it.

Isn’t Mills the sort of player we can move around age a bit on? He’s not extremely young, but only because of his draft age; it’s hard to ask a guy to get to AA in his first year of pro ball, isn’t it?

I would think this is the year we anticipate Wegz playing well in AA while Mills potentially moves all the way to AAA, fixing the age gap.

by afh4 on Feb 4, 2009 11:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It’s not a knock on Mills, who only has one professional year in. But if you’re going to compare the two guys, Mills’ ISO edge is not significant once you consider their ages. Guys in their early 20’s often see huge jumps in power, so Wegz is 1.60 with that surge wholly in front of him, while Mills is 1.75 with that surge mostly behind him. And that’s why Wegz is the better hitting prospect.

by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I fully believe Weglarz will be over 3.00 when its all said and done. Yes I said it and it will happen.

by hans on Feb 5, 2009 1:25 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you realize 3 is absurdly high, right? assuming he’s a .250 hitter, that’s a Bonds-like SLG%

by APV on Feb 5, 2009 5:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ALLLLLLLLLLLL NATURAL, BABY!!

Don't be stupid. PUT IN MELOAN.

by gte619n on Feb 8, 2009 8:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think beyond the one year age difference, they have had a substantially different level of exposure to the game. Beau Mills is the son of a major leaguer and Weglarz is from rural Canada. This might be me making up stuff, but I think that might have an effect on how much more room they have to grow. For instance, Goldstein thinks Weglarz has the greater power potential of the two and offered an explanation for Weglarz’s lack of power this year, a hitch in his swing. He claims the Indians fixed that and he should be fine. Weglarz’s game is still very raw, he’s got plenty of untapped potential beyond him just getting stronger. Mills, on the other hand, is seen as a very polished hitter, though he too may get stronger.

by ClarkM on Feb 5, 2009 4:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Completely agree with the assessment of Weglarz. With all due respect to coaches up here, there’s no way he could’ve received optimal instruction through his elementary and high school years. I live in a city of 300,000 and we didn’t even have high school baseball until this year (only 4 of 20 high schools have a team). Club baseball is where most players get the best instruction obviously, but still it’s nothing compared to the advice Weglarz is getting with the Tribe.

by supermarioelia on Feb 5, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

ISO displays the probability that a player will get an extra base for every at bat. Dividing seems a bit goofy. You’re taking away from a player then for making contact. For example, Dunn ’08 JISO=2.17 Pujols ’08 JISO=1.82.

by rockemsockem on Feb 5, 2009 2:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re not taking away for making contact, you’re just disregarding it. That’s why it’s called isolated power — it’s power isolated from contact.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 9:40 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You’re not taking away for making contact, but you’re sort of taking away for singles, in that if a guy changes a groundout into a single, he has to raise his extra base rate just to keep up. At least with subtraction the singles cancel out.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 9:50 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, right. You’re trying to see to what extent the guy is just a singles hitter, and being a singles hitter is a negative thing in the context of measuring raw power.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 10:12 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But ISO does take out singles, in that they add to BA and SLG equally (so they cancel out). It’s singles-neutral. Your thing actually penalizes for singles compared to outs, which doesn’t seem desirable to me.

Your idea can be rewritten as: JISO = (ISO + BA) / (BA). Singles affect BA but not ISO, so any time you replace an out with a single, your “JISO” goes down. Why would you want that?

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 11:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

For two reasons.

First, because hitting a single indicates that the batter is less of a pure power hitter, which is what I’m trying to measure, and making an out suggests nothing in either direction. (In fact, strikeouts specifically have a slightly positive correlation with home runs!)

Second, because I’m not falling into the trap of trying to measure overall quality with every stat. The whole point of an isolated stat is to isolate one aspect of a player’s game. You would never rate players strictly on isolated anything, because by definition, you’re leaving things out. Therefore, it should not bother you if some contra-indications sneak in there — we’ve got other isolated stats for those, and aggregate stats as well. Think of ISO as characterizing a player’s skills rather than quantifying the exact value of those skills, which requires more context.

We talk about walk rate all the time here, but every time a player gets a base hit — even a home run! — his walk rate goes down. Does that drive you crazy? Apparently not. The idea with walk rate is a bit like bluff rates in poker — the point is not that walking is better than hitting, but that if a player is not drawing walks at a certain rate, it’s an indicator that his overall approach might be off, and he might have trouble sustaining whatever good stuff he’s been doing.

I’m looking at ISO the same way. Basically, this is a measure of how hard a guy is hitting the ball, to the extent that can be derived from raw play-by-play data. Obviously you can do a lot more nuanced stuff with batted-ball data, but that’s a whole other category of stat at that point.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 1:28 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

Thought of another way to explain it. Something useful to know — I hope this is obvious — is simply, what percentage of a player’s base hits go for extra bases? And the math would be simple:

(2B + 3B + HR) / H

Right. So then, let’s say you want to give extra credit for triples and homers, because there’s an extra base gained.

(2B + 2*3B + 3*HR) / H

Now, this formula truly penalizes for singles. My formula gives more credit than that, essentially padding the numerator:

(1B + 2*2B + 3*3B + 4*HR) / H

which of course equals

TB / H

Mind you, I’m not saying traditional ISO is wrong, but I do think it’s less useful, considering we already have slugging and OPS and a thousand other things to look at.

I’m just trying to show you why looking at TB / H might also have its purposes, and in fact better purposes, than simple ISO, and this is particularly more important for prospects, where we’re looking at not just their production, but how that production will translate against higher-quality pitching, and there are some well researched principles for understanding that.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 1:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

And to further clafiry, I’d probably rather look at

(TB – 3B) / H

which would set doubles equal to triples. Essentially, I’m not interested in bases gained with legs or soft/medium contact hitting.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree about ISO being redundant with slugging and OPS, etc…. after all you can see it just by glancing at the BA/OBP/SLG line. I also like the ~~3B edit here -~~ this is what PECOTA does, except with AB in the denominator.

I’m coming to be persuaded that if we could have some confidence in being able to effectively and validly categorize at-bats as “successful” and “unsuccessful”, that it might be useful to take out the chunk of successful ones and see how they break down — so I suppose doing some BIP normalization would be helpful there… but if you start out with something that has symmetrical noise on it (it’s just as likely to be overrepresenting the “true” value as underrepresenting it), that noise will stay symmetrical so long as you do linear things with it (i.e. adding and subtracting it)… but dividing by it makes the noise biased.

I have to defer to you on the “well researched principles” point, which I guess makes this an empirical question: can we construct a model using JISO that has added predictive power over things we already have?

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 1:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah… had a minus sign on 3B and then a dash.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 1:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, that’s what I’m getting at. The principles are not the same for projecting a Single-A hitter at age 21 into the majors at age 25, as they are projecting a guy’s major league track record, ages 24-29, into his age-30 season. And this whole conversation is about the former projection and not the latter — about measuring Mills’ progress as a power hitter vs. Weglarz.

Prospect evaluators talk about what percentage of the hits are going for extra bases all the time. In the minors, there’s lots of middling contact hitters with a lot of foot-speed, and there’s lots of feasting on pitchers with mediocre movement. Unless it’s combined with other peripheral skills, singles hitting is unimportant to the point of almost being a contra-indicator — especially for a player whose entire value lies in his potential as a power hitter.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 2:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting… I have to go again, but I’ll think about this — I have some initial reactions, but I’ll wait to post until I can think them through.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 2:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, just keep in mind, Logo … I am not changing the conversation here as a maneuver … this was the real, original conversation!

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 2:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I will certainly grant you that :-)

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 5:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

By the way, the second and third formulas are the same thing — you’ve just added 1 to the second one*. So they penalize the same amount for singles.

*i.e., you’ve added (1B+2B+3B+HR)/H = (H / H)

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 7:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

which is interesting in itself, because it means that for a constant ISO, JISO-1 is inversely proportional to batting average. It’s normalizing ISO by AVG to get at what you (presumably) expect to be the constant "kernel’ of a player’s power makeup: #XB / H. Whether that is what remains constant from the minors to the majors is a good question, but it makes a lot more conceptual sense when you think about it that way.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 8:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think it remains constant, but I think that that “kernel” power (nice way of putting it) is a more significant indicator than the traditional ISO stat.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 8:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The difference between this and walk rate is that walk rate is completely neutral to everything that’s not a walk — they all count as 0. In the same way, ISO is completely neutral to everything that’s not an extra base hit. So, no, the fact that hitting a homerun adversely impacts walk rate doesn’t bother me, because that works the same way as the thing I’m defending.

But if you start dividing by hits, then you’re not being neutral any more, you’re penalizing a guy for the times he’s lucky and his relatively less well-hit balls happen to fall in. You said yourself that luck impacts singles rate a lot more than XBH rate, so shouldn’t we try to cut luck out and just count anything that’s not an extra base hit as the same?

I can kind of see what you’re saying if the purpose of the stat is to categorize rather than evaluate…. hang on, just saw your next comment.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 1:44 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

you’re penalizing a guy for the times he’s lucky and his relatively less well-hit balls happen to fall in

No moreso than you’re rewarding a guy for being unlucky on those same balls. No stat incoporating singles is immune from BIP variance, but either you’re correcting for that or you’re not.

walk rate is completely neutral to everything that’s not a walk

Because something different is being measured. Again, you are getting stuck trying to measure the value of production. What we are working on here is projecting a young player based on understanding what and where his skills are.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No moreso than you’re rewarding a guy for being unlucky on those same balls. No stat incoporating singles is immune from BIP variance

I assume that was just a typo and you meant that ISO rewards them for being lucky (otherwise I can’t figure out how it makes sense)? The thing is, it only rewards luck when that luck translates into an extra base hit — but so does JISO. If luck means changing an out into a single then it has absolutely no impact on ISO — but it has a negative impact on JISO.

What we are working on here is projecting a young player based on understanding what and where his skills are.

I realize that, but I’m going to need some convincing that singles rate in the minors is a negative predictor of some measure of major league success even if you hold extra base rate constant. You say above that hitting singles is “unimportant to the point of almost being a contra-indicator”… but is that because singles rate goes up when you change an XBH into a single? I still find it really hard to believe that changing an out to a single could be a bad sign, all else being equal (and the all else being equal part is key), but I’m open to convincing with careful evidence.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 5:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

isn’t that like saying a tripple brings down your slg% since it wasn’t a homerun?

by Brick. on Feb 5, 2009 10:19 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, compared to a homerun, getting a triple will produce a lower slg, but it should. Compared to an out, or a double, or a single, a triple produces a higher slg. My objection is that I don’t like a stat that gives you something worse for a single than it gives you for an out.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 11:54 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

okay, fair enough. but the stat is there to look at what it’s there to look at. if you want to look at a number that gives you positive credit for a single, why not just look at slg, obp, ops or avg or something.

by Brick. on Feb 5, 2009 1:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But the point is that we’d like a stat that ignores singles (not one that gives positive credit)… ISO does exactly that. Singles are rendered utterly irrelevant.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 1:27 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Singles are rendered utterly irrelevant.

because singles aren’t a measure of power which is what it’s trying to isolate. where have i read this before?

by Brick. on Feb 5, 2009 1:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly. That’s what I’m saying — rendering them irrelevant is good.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 2:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i really shouldn’t jump into these conversations. i get lost fast.

by Brick. on Feb 5, 2009 2:28 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Sorry if I’ve been saying things in a confusing way…. The upshot of what I was saying is that traditional ISO doesn’t take singles into account at all — or, more precisely, it doesn’t distinguish between singles and outs at all. The reason is because, while changing a single to an out raises SLG, it raises AVG by exactly the same amount. Since ISO is the difference between the two, the out/single distinction cancels out. My claim was that this is a good feature, because it isolates “power events” (extra base hits) as the only things that are “successes”. If it’s not an extra base hit, it doesn’t matter, it’s just tabbed as a zero.

With JayISO, on the other hand, singles end up counting as worse than outs. Because it’s a ratio, it’s not the incremental difference that matters, but the proportional difference. Since changing an out to a single has a bigger proportional impact on “hits” than on “total bases” (simply because the former is a smaller number to begin with), the denominator goes up by more than the numerator, making the overall stat smaller. Whether you think this is a desirable feature or not is the question — that it’s a feature is a mathematical fact.

I hope that wasn’t too pedantic… sorry if it was.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 4:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

traditional ISO doesn’t take singles into account at all — or, more precisely, it doesn’t distinguish between singles and outs at all.

the way i think of ISO, this makes all the sense in the world. to me.

by Brick. on Feb 5, 2009 4:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

then we agree

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 4:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

great. i think i got lost bouncing back and forth with the above convo (see what i did there?)

by Brick. on Feb 5, 2009 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Or more precisely the expected number of extra bases per AB (i.e. it’s an average, not a percentage).

I agree though that dividing TB by hits doesn’t make a lot of sense, because then you’re not taking contact rate into account at all. A guy who slugs .600 and bats .400 would get the same score as a guy who slugs .300 and bats .200, for example, when in fact the former is getting twice as many extra bases per AB. I guess it comes down to what you want “isolated” to mean… For me, the current system (or maybe better the PECOTA version of it: (2B + 3B + 3*HR)/AB, is more useful as a measure of value.

If you really wanted to look only at contact, you could use an adjusted batting average that doesn’t count strikeouts or something… but I’m not wild about that either, personally.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 9:41 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I should say, “seems more useful”, since I haven’t done any empirical study of the two.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Actually, an interesting way to look at it would be total bases per BIP, where

BIP = AB – HR – K

except that we know that H / BIP is mostly a measure of luck, so you’d have that variance mixed in with whatever skill set you were trying to measure. That is another reason why it makes sense just to use TB / H.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 9:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

but wait…. if you’re putting H in the denominator, then you’re making that H/BIP variance have an even bigger impact, aren’t you? I have to go, actually, so I don’t have time to think this through now, but we’ll pick it up later.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 9:52 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes. It would be better to luck-normalize hits, and then also luck-normalize the doubles and triples as well — for that matter you can normalize the HR/F. At some point, though, you’re just chasing your tail. You have to decide if you’re looking for a simple, raw stat that reflects what actually happened on the field, or a semi-sophisticated estimation of what we think the guy’s raw ability might be.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 10:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think this normalization question is actually separate from the question about whether hits should be multiplicative or additive (well, actually divisive or subtractive)… Given that you have something noisy, dividing by it will produce a more volatile stat than subtracting it will.

If you’re able to clean up some of the noise, it will improve stability, but the question still stands as to whether it makes sense to penalize for singles, rather than being singles-neutral.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 12:33 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Given that you have something noisy, dividing by it will produce a more volatile stat than subtracting it will.

In general, I might agree with you. But I’m adding hits into the numerator and the denominator, so whatever the variance is, it’s affecting both parts of the fraction in the same direction, even if not by the same proportion, which has a stabilizing effect.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 2:00 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it affects both parts in the same direction, and it’s certainly more stable than not including singles in the numerator, but one single has a bigger proportional impact on the denominator than it has on the numerator, and so the net effect is negative.

If you graph JISO as a function of BA for a constant ISO, it’s exponentially decreasing (that is, the curvature is “upward”, and it flattens out as BA increases) — more steeply the higher the ISO.

Anyway, I think the real question is “what are we trying to predict?”…. once we know that, it becomes an empirical question whether JISO is useful.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 2:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well how about XB/(BIP+HR)? That is, (TB-H)/(AB-K)…or even better (TB-H-3B)/(AB-K)? Seems like this might be a good compromise between traditional ISO and TB/H - it treats singles the same as outs (instead of penalizing for them like TB/H), but it also doesn’t penalize for Ks like ISO. You have some luck mixed in, but it would only make a difference when an out or a single became an extra base hit or vice versa, and you wouldn’t count it backwards.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Couldn’t you just do TB/H and then multiply it by average or something, to ‘normalize’ it?

/out of depth.

by afh4 on Feb 5, 2009 9:47 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think I see what you’re getting at. You could multiply by the variance between a player’s BABIP and the league average — his BABIP+ if you will — to attempt to weed out the luck factor. The problem is that luck impacts a player’s singles much more than his doubles and triples.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That makes some sense to me.

But, I was actually trying to address Logo’s “no difference between a .200/.300 hitter and a .400/.500 hitter” thing. Like, couldn’t you go back and multiple the difference (.100) by the average x100 to highlight the difference.

So, the first guy’s number would be 2, the second guy’s would be 4. This has the disadvantage of getting farther and farther from anything with any context, but it’s not like ISO doesn’t suffer from that already.

by afh4 on Feb 5, 2009 10:22 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Well, to answer Logo’s concern directly … that isn’t a problem. In this one isolated aspect, those two players are, in fact, the same.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 10:28 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Those two are, and I agree. But with the numbers I actually cited, they’re only the same using your method. The question is, should they be?

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 12:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 1:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

My example was actually .200/.300 vs. .400/.600. If you take ISO, the first guy’s number is .100, the second guy’s number is .200, which seems right. But if you take Jay’s ratio stat, then both guys have a score of 1.5 which, considering the second guy got extra bases at a higher rate than the first guy, seems odd.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 12:40 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That’s what I was saying. Jay’s is a nice idea but sort of brutish and really doesn’t tell you a whole lot. At least traditional ISO is a probability.

by rockemsockem on Feb 5, 2009 4:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I’ve basically been echoing what you initially said this whole time.

Though again, just to be picky, it’s not a probability, but an expected value (an average).

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 6:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah my mistake.

by rockemsockem on Feb 5, 2009 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Again, it tells you less about raw performance value but more about raw, projectable talent. The fact that you don’t understand that doesn’t make it brutish.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

It was not a personal attack and if it came off as such, I apologize. However, just because I don’t think JISO tells us much doesn’t mean I don’t understand it.

by rockemsockem on Feb 5, 2009 9:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You should read our discussion above. I think it’s more useful now (as a potential means of backwards inferring a prospect’s power “kernel” for projection to the majors) than I did at first. I’m not entirely convinced that’s the right kernel, but it’s an interesting idea nonetheless.

As of 5 minutes ago though, I like (TB-H)/(AB-K) as a “best of both worlds” candidate between the two.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That is, our discussion above and below. If you haven’t read it already…

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can dig it. The rate for which batted balls result in an extra base? Makes sense. This puts Weglarz right around .202 and Mills at .273. For the sake of argument, is there any chance with Weglarz that we are looking at a Markakis type? Or should we expect more?

by rockemsockem on Feb 5, 2009 9:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

He’s young enough that there’s a wide range of possibilities, from superstar to bust. But he’s got real superstar ceiling and and is young and talented enough to make a total bust unlikely. That is, he’s capable of more than Markakis, but I don’t think it can be considered likely until we see him against more advanced pitching.

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

The problem is that luck impacts a player’s singles much more than his doubles and triples.

But this is yet another reason why making the stat singles-neutral, rather than singles averse, is good.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 12:38 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

TB/H = SLG/AVG, so if you take that and multiply by AVG you’re left with SLG.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 12:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right. And SLG seems to be what you guys really want to measure, so why not just use SLG?

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 1:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yes there is a problem with that because you are then penalizing for taking a walk since walks do not count as total bases.

by rockemsockem on Feb 5, 2009 2:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, but that’s basically what I wanted to do. Weglarz ability to walk at a low level without corresponding power is one of the knocks that pseudo-evaluators seem to get on him for. That said, with his dropping K-rate, it doesn’t seem like he’s being seen as a walks no-contact guy (for good reason).

I don’t think ISO makes any sense, still.

by afh4 on Feb 5, 2009 9:43 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

But I don’t think you want to give a guy a worse number for walking than you do for making an out, which is what this would do. You could maybe make it work by using a modified SLG which uses the same denominator as OBP — then at least you’re counting walks like an out, instead of worse, plus you can interpret it.

by Logodaedalus on Feb 5, 2009 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Probably fair to say that Weglarz’ decrease in slugging (ok, home runs) from ’07 is what kept him a little under the quick scan threshold for “5 star” prospect status, and that will be what most everyone will be looking at in ’09.

But two things about his ’08 really stand out for me in terms of his making absolutely necessary adjustments for eventual ML duty – firstly, he cut his K rate significantly while maintaining his stellar walk rate, and secondly he (apparently) moved from being a detriment in LF to at least average.

To me, considering he made significant strides on his weaknesses while maintaining most everything else (at a higher level), Weglarz actually increased his value in the system and made himself into a better prospect.

by mcrose on Feb 4, 2009 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I mean, a passable left fielder is more valuable than a passable first baseman. Not massively more valuable, but it’s there.

by fleerdon on Feb 4, 2009 9:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

You are correct sir.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Feb 5, 2009 7:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Anytime a prospect progresses one level in one season, he becomes a better prospect. That’s a rule.

by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Also, I’m interested to see Huff pitch. Talent evaluators typically rank him lower than I would think his numbers dictate. I want to see the goods.

by afh4 on Feb 4, 2009 1:56 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

This.

Travis Hafner is overrated. Clarity is underrated. David Dellucci is David Dellucci.

by westbrook on Feb 4, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Take away Crowe, and I’m pretty sure I’d put the same 10 guys together. I’m continually dismayed by the lack of love David Huff gets. I still think his development last year suggests he has a higher ceiling than he’s given credit for. He strikes guys out. He doesn’t walk guys. He gets guys to pound the ball into the ground. And he’s done it all the way through AAA guys. You can’t ask for much more.

by APV on Feb 4, 2009 2:14 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I also think it’s because alot of people still view him as a soft tossing lefty, and continue to group him with Sowers, Lewis and Laffey. Most reports I’ve read have his fastball at 88-92, which is better than what those 3 other guys bring. Keith Law even said Huff topped out at 94. Another thing that sets him apart is his changeup.

Beau Mills also gets underrated a little bit IMO. Let’s not forget that 2008 was his first full season in pro ball, and he didn’t do anything to hurt his stock. The fact that he put up a .962 OPS after the break suggests that he’ll only get better. Sure his defense is iffy, but everybody knew he wouldn’t stick at 3rd and in time I really think he’ll become an average defender at 1st.

by JP_Frost on Feb 4, 2009 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Doesn’t Cole Hamels top out at 94 with a sick changeup?

by Roger Dorn on Feb 4, 2009 5:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Goldstein goes out of his way to mention this about Huff.

by ClarkM on Feb 4, 2009 5:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Along those lines, I remember listening to the Buffalo announcers last year during Huff’s first AAA start. It was the first time they had seen “the goods”. I was struck that they were surprised by how hard he threw, that they (like most) were expecting the soft tossing lefty, but were looking at a guy that attacked hitters with his fastball, and was more the aggressive Cliff Lee type than the finesse/control type they had seen a lot of in Sowers, Laffey et al.

I believe he was consistently 90-92 on the heater that game, tho it wasn’t necessarily pure velocity that set him apart from their expectations, it was more that, like Lee, he used the fastball as his primary weapon. Just from listening to that game, he went up a notch in my own prospect ranking.

by mcrose on Feb 4, 2009 9:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think one thing to consider with Huff is his relatively short track record of success. True, the scouting reports do not match up with the numbers he posted last year, but 145 innings isn’t a huge sample.

by ClarkM on Feb 4, 2009 5:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I’m doing a Q&A with Kevin, so feel free to submit questions, which I might ignore.

by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 5:27 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

does he read the best SBN blogs, ie LGT, LL, RR, etc

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Feb 4, 2009 5:50 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

¿Dónde está, Señor Kelvin?

by Brick. on Feb 4, 2009 5:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

and now that i go back, i noticed the just missed list. that’s pretty much everyone.

by Brick. on Feb 4, 2009 7:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to know how often he (or someone else from BP) sees the players live. Also, what are their other sources of data — scouts, league managers, team minor league directors, etc. What weight do they give to seeing a player in person once or twice vs. feedback from other sources? Do they have “cross-checkers” for their potential top 50 or top 100 prospects to help compare across leagues and levels?

"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007

by DeRoMyHero on Feb 4, 2009 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I would like to know what he sees as Huff’s biggest challenge in translating his success to the major league level

by APV on Feb 4, 2009 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How come the Indians don’t seem to collect many power arms? Is it too expensive of a skill for them to target, or do they just not think velocity is as valuable as some organizations do? I’m thinking of the DeRosa trade, which involved three of our harder-throwing prospects.

by fleerdon on Feb 4, 2009 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A power arm doesn’t mean anything without movement, control and health — I mean, in a very basic way, velocity by itself is not worth a dime, just as running speed isn’t. I think we can afford hard throwers just fine on the amateur level, but we may not make the mistake of over-valuing just the power of the arm, which would put other teams ahead of us in line for one-dimensional guys like that.

If the Cubs are overvaluing flawed hard throwers — or if we’re undervaluing them — that would make the DeRosa deal make more sense. But we still have Miller, Sipp and Meloan, and Rondon, De La Cruz and Gomez. I don’t think we’re lacking for hard throwers.

by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 8:46 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

All true. I think the Tigers may be an example of emphasizing velocity at the expense of other pitching skills.

It may just be a case of envy. I feel as though the Twins minor league squads can’t book a hotel without accidentally discovering another guy who throws 97. Another possibility is that guys who throw that hard and can actually pitch are much more rare than I’d like to believe. But then, you asked what I’d want to talk to Kevin Goldstein about. That’s what I’d want to talk about. Really good fastballs. I’m looking forward to that Latin Trio, and it’s not because of their groundball rates, no matter how much more logical that would be.

by fleerdon on Feb 4, 2009 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think the Twins are unusually good at finding those guys, give them some credit. That doesn’t mean we have a deficit.

by Jay on Feb 4, 2009 11:17 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

This has nothing to do with us but I want to know when the hell Clay Buchholz is going to be good.

Invite Kevin to the blog. I’m sure he could answer some of Andrew’s questions comparing Weglarz to Mills.

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Feb 5, 2009 7:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Right around the time Jeremy Sowers is. I tried to tell you …

by Jay on Feb 5, 2009 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I listened to that debate and I heeded a lot of what you had to say. Maybe you’ll slip something in about it to him?

Steel Nick

by nickjs21 on Feb 5, 2009 1:52 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Does anyone know how BP’s “star” system compares to other systems that use A, B, and C? Is 5 stars equivalent to A?

"I've never complained about it. I'm thankful to have a jersey." Mark DeRosa, 22 Aug 2007

by DeRoMyHero on Feb 4, 2009 7:21 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Keep in mind that many team’s lists hit the two-star prospects level within their Top 11, but with Cleveland it wouldn’t show up until around the 20th player,

by Brick. on Feb 4, 2009 7:48 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Right, the blurb around the original fanpost isn’t quite right, I don’t think. Goldstein points out that our Top 20 guys (evidently) are all at least 3-star guys, not the top 11.

by cheech99 on Feb 4, 2009 9:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah, i think the tidbit is even more exciting.

by Brick. on Feb 4, 2009 11:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

yeah that is dropping it hot

Anti-Ben Fran before it was cool.

by Gradyforpresident on Feb 5, 2009 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

speaking of prospects, Tony Lastoria’s countdown is in the 50s and starting to hit some more interesting names. The two most recent (Delvi Cid and Clayton Cook) are both very young, but interesting guys. In the case of Cid, here’s why I think he’s an interesting guy:

his name is Delvi Cid. The Dominican seems to have cornered the market on names that are awesome and need no nickname
perhaps more substantively, he appears to already be an above average defender in CF (based on scouting reports and a minimal amount of metric data) – which means he has a lot more margin for error as a prospect than a similar guy who is a corner outfielder at best because of his defensive ceiling
he’s young…he’ll just be turning 19 this year
he seems to have a solid approach at the plate – hits for good average without hitting too many groundballs, seems to have good control over his Ks and walks – even though he has zero power thus far
has an unteachable skill, speed. speed isn’t critical in baseball, but having it can only help. Tony says he grades out as the fastest guy in the system.

These are the kind of young guys who are fun to watch. I wouldn’t get carried away with either of them because they haven’t even stepped out of short-season/rookie leagues, but they are guys to take note of once they do. Hopefully they’ll both start the year in Lake County so we don’t have to wait till the end of June to watch them.

by APV on Feb 5, 2009 9:26 AM EST reply actions 0 recs