2010 vs. 2003/2004: System Talent
by APV on Feb 19, 2011 11:15 PM EST
in Analysis
Email
PrintUpdate: I've added a few quantitative comparisons at the end
I recently finished a primarily laudatory assessment of the Indians farm system - a few nice hitting prospects and a boatload of interesting pitchers, coupled with a young major league squad. A consensus view of our system is that its greatest strength is its depth. Ideas differ about who and how many guys project as above average major leaguers, but there is no doubt the system is flush with interesting players, particularly pitching arms. While calling the Indians system one of the "deepest in the game," Kevin Goldstein of Baseball Prospectus added:
The Indians system is a difficult one to wrap your head around. It lacks the star power of an elite system, but at the same time, don't be surprised if it produces a greater number of big-leaguers than any organization in baseball.
Similar thoughts were echoed by Keith Law, the folks at Baseball America and Jon Sickels. What is less clear is how likely the Indians depth of talent will translate into major league success for Cleveland. In the comments of the same review, Goldstein added that he viewed the Indians as being on "a path to competition, not to contention."
One way to approach the question is to compare how our system looks now relative to times in the past. Specifically I am interested in what our system looked like at the end of 2003 and 2004, just as we were about to re-emerge as a contender. In case you have blocked the years from your memory, you may recall that the Indians experienced a precipitous decline from the 91 win season of 2001 to a 94 loss season just two years later in 2003, only to boomerang back to a 93 win squad in 2005. While the 2002 acquisition of Cliff Lee, Grady Sizemore and Brandon Phillips (and Lee Stevens!) is the hallmark transaction of this turnaround, 2003 and 2004 saw a huge infusion of young talent into Cleveland's team and the broader organization. The winning teams of 2005 and 2007 were built off the turnaround of 2003 and 2004. So how does the current mix of young major league talent, blue chip minor league prospects, and overall system depth compare to those seasons? Can we reject the idea that the Indians are on the brink of another turnaround? And if not, are we closer to 2003 or 2004 in terms of major league competitiveness?
I'm not going to repeat my system overview in its entirety here (see my hitting overview, pitching overview, the DiaTriber's comments, Al Ciammiachelli's work at The Cleveland Fan, and Tony Lastoria's stuff for more details), but after the jump I am going to re-examine what our system looked like in 2003 and 2004, then draw some systematic comparisons.
The easiest thing to assess, in retrospect, is what talent was already present in Cleveland in 2003 and 2004. It is a little harder to reconstruct what our expectations of that talent looked like seven or eight years ago, but we can make some approximation.
2003:
Milton Bradley was the best player, just 25, in Cleveland. 2003 was the year Bradley seized his tremendous talent and turned it into results. But he did not escape either the personality or injury issues which have and continue to plague his career. Despite the teams abysmal record, Bradley was hardly the only young talent on the team. Travis Hafner, age 26, didn't break out exactly, but he gave positive signs (14 HRs) in a little over half a season of play. Jody Gerut, age 25, was the surprise second best offensive player. Brandon Phillips, just 22, struggled mightily in his full-season debut, but still had the pedigree of a blue-chipper. Jhonny Peralta, even younger at 21, was forced into regular action, also struggled, but managed to impress in the process. Coco Crisp was forced into extended action and flashed solid defense, even if outmatched by major league pitchers. More importantly, Victor Martinez (age 24), made a second half debut without embarrassing himself. Ryan Ludwick (age 24) hit 7 HRs in 39 games at the end of the season. Alex Escobar, age 24, managed to not physically explode in 28 games. While neither impressed, Josh Bard (age 25) spent half the season as the team's primary catcher, while Ben Broussard (age 26) spent most of the season as the primary first baseman. On the pitching side, CC Sabathia (age 22) continued his development apace. Jake Westbrook (age 25) gave the first indication of the pitcher he would become. Jason Davis and Billy Traber (both 23), struggled. Cliff Lee (age 24) made a successful late season debut. Jason Stanford, Brian Tallet and Chad Durbin also saw action.
This team had, in retrospect, a tremendous amount of talent. But as the record of the team suggests, the talent was coupled with a huge amount of uncertainty. Only Brantley, Gerut, Sabathia and Lee really showed flashes of excellence. There were many many positive signs outside of that group, but few sure things.
2004:
2004 saw both a filtering of wheat from chaff and the consolidation of the potential flashed in 2003. Victor Martinez became the everyday catcher and put up All-Star number. Travis Hafner became Pronk. Coco Crisp emerged as a legitimate player. Broussard, though already 27, held his own at first. Jake Westbrook became the team's most consistent (and best) starter. Cliff Lee showed his potential across a full season. Sabathia continued his incremental progress towards greatness. Crisp aside, these were top prospects performing well at the big league level, not just showing potential.
Others fared not as well. Gerut got hurt and suffered. Brandon Phillips and Jhonny Peralta spent most of the season in Buffalo (with very different results, outlined below). Escobar and Ludwick floundered. Durbin and Davis struggled. But the season also saw the debut of 21-year old Grady Sizemore.
Compared to 2003, there were fewer individual young talents in Cleveland in 2003, but those that were there performed much better and erased a lot of the uncertainty around them. While the team post-2003 might have looked like one with greater potential in an ideal world, the team post-2004 looked like one you would expect to do better going forward - potential had begun being replaced by results.
2010:
Which moves us forward to today's team. Marson (24), Cabrera (24), Valbuena (24), LaPorta (25), Brantley (23), Donald (25), and Crowe (26) all played key roles and struggled. Carlos Santana (24) made sure that not every young player struggled. And it is not as if the supposed rocks of the team - one who struggled (Sizemore) and one who excelled (Choo) - are that old, as both were just in their age-27 season. The pitching staff depended even more on young talent. The veterans, in their age 26 seasons, were Fausto Carmona and rookie Mitch Talbot. Justin Masterson, David Huff, Josh Tomlin and Aaron Laffey - all age 25 - showed mixed results. Chris Perez (24) was great, as was Carlos Carrasco (23). Even Jeanmar Gomez (22) showed flashes of potential.
2010 was not 2004. We did not see a lot of young players, outside of Santana and a few pitchers, producing major league results. But if the more appropriate comparison is 2003, the 2010 Indians featured a greater number of legitimately talented young players. Not many of the 2010 kids had the pedigree of a guy like Phillips, but a few of them (LaPorta, Carrasco) could probably be considered in that ballpark. Accepting these comparisons, 2011 might be expected to look something like 2004, where the talent debuted last season separates into legit talents and could-have-been misses.
But the major league talent is only part of the story. Grady Sizemore's debut at the end of 2004 was just part of an emering core of talent, including Jhonny Peralta's MVP performance in the International League that season. How does our current minor league system stack up to those of 2003 and 2004?
2003:
In 2003, Jim Ingraham wrote this about Cleveland for Baseball America:
At the major league level, Cleveland’s .420 winning percentage was its 10th-worst since it began play in 1901. The Tribe’s six minor league clubs, however, combined for a .575 mark, the second-best in baseball
...
Many longtime Indians employees say it has been decades since the organization had this much depth in its farm system, and it makes the team’s minor league talent among the best in the game. Cleveland has so much talent, in fact, that several legitimate prospects with eye-catching numbers or good tools couldn’t crack the organization’s top 10.
The Indians aren’t ready to contend in the AL Central this year, but they should be able to challenge no later than 2006. Their only division rival whose future looks as bright is the Twins.
Grady Sizemore (.304/.373/.480, AA) was the Indians top prospect, but he was just one of many talented young Tribe stars. If we evaluate the system on the same basis I have with this year's system - a combination of age, position and performance - Sizemore is far from the only standout. Victor Martinez was great (.329/.393/.476, AAA), while Crisp (.360/.434/.511, AAA) and Peralta (.257/.310/.329, AA shortstop) were excellent in their half-season in the minors. Alex Escobar (.251/.296/.472, AAA) and Corey Smith (.271/.340/.397, AA) showed power potential, though little else. Recent draftee Michael Aubrey also looked good. Outside of that was an interesting group of players. There weren't many who were great performers, but there were a number with plus defense that ended up having major league careers (Macier Izturis, Ivan Ochoa, Wily Tavares, Hector Luna), as well as a couple who were somewhat old who ended up having success in other organizations (Ryan Church, Luke Scott).
The pitching is a little bit harder to sort through, but one thing that sticks out is that relative to the present, the 2003 pitchers in the system were older. The 2003 Buffalo pitchers were 27 years of age on average, while the guys in Akron were nearly 25. Contrast that with the 2010 squads which were under 25 and 24, respectively. In AAA, Cliff Lee and Jason Stanford were the most impressive on a statistical basis. Jeremy Guthrie also did well, but in a Sowersian fashion. Fernando Cabrera, and to a lesser extent Francisco Cruceta, led the Akron rotation. Rafael Betancourt dominated out of the Akron pen, supported by Japanese import Kaz Tadano. Kinston could have perhaps been viewed as the most talented staff, but by and large it was characterized by players who put up just marginal performances, such as the draft quartet of JD Martin, Dan Denham, Jake Dittler and Travis Foley, as well as Mariano Gomez and Brian Slocum. This was a group a lot of people were high on, but they didn't perform in 2003. Lake County meanwhile featured a couple of control specialists, the young Fausto Carmona and the more veteran Keith Ramsey.
Move ahead a season and the Indians system looked a little more impressive. Writing for Baseball America, this is what Chris Kline said about the system back on November of 2004:
It didn’t mollify the general public, but Shapiro promised the Indians would be able to contend again by 2005. Thanks to trades, the draft and their ability to develop prospects, the Tribe finds itself on the brink of Shapiro’s original timetable....
There’s more talent on the way. The Indians have been stockpiling arms as they attempt to complement an offense that ranked fifth in the majors in scoring in 2004...
No. 1 prospect Adam Miller is a couple of years away, but Fausto Carmona, Francisco Cabrera, Andrew Brown, Cruceta, Kyle Denney and Jeremy Guthrie should be able to contribute in 2005. More hitting is on the way as well, as Sizemore, Phillips and Jhonny Peralta are ready for full-time duty.
While Cleveland hasn’t quite returned to its winning ways in the majors, its minor league affiliates are getting the job done. The Indians became the first organization since the Dodgers in 1990 to win championships at four levels in the minors.
In 2004, BA ranked the Indians top 10 prospects this way:
1. Adam Miller, rhp
2. Michael Aubrey, 1b
3. Franklin Gutierrez, of
4. Brad Snyder, of
5. Jeremy Sowers, lhp
6. Fausto Carmona, rhp
7. Fernando Cabrera, rhp
8. Ryan Garko, c/1b
9. Nick Pesco, rhp
10. Andy Brown, rhp
2004 saw fantastic seasons from Grady Sizemore and Jhonny Peralta at AAA. They looked and played like the real thing. Consensus blue-chipper, Brandon Phillips, did not, but did hold his own in a turbulent AAA campaign. Michael Aubrey began to show his fragility in Akron, but his weaknesses were over-shadowed by Ryan Garko's high batting average and Franklin Gutierrez's all-around solid play. The lower part of the Indians sytem was buoyed by strong performances from older prospects like Brad Snyder, Kevin Kouzmanoff and Ryan Goleski. Again it is worth noticing that a number of the guys who had gone on to have major league careers (Ochoa, Francisco and Kouzmanoff) were not particularly heralded.
2004 was a better year for the pitchers in the system. Carmona was in Buffalo by the end of the season. Cabrera continued to put up huge strikeout numbers at the AAA level, although a worrying lack of control began to emerge. Andrew Brown, fresh from the LA system, promised large strikeout numbers. Reclamation project Bob Howry showed promise in the Bisons pens, though no one performed better in the pen than Matt Miller(!). The disappointing 2003 quartet made a few steps forward, as Dittler had a nice season. Jeremy Guthrie showed more Sowerscess. Adam Miller, the BA #1 prospect, was identified as the gem of the system at this point, but he was still far from Cleveland (though we didn't know how far).
Summary:
So how do these groups compare to Cleveland's system at the present? The Indians don't have the upper minors positional talent that it did in 2003 or 2004. Yet. You can imagine a situation in which a year from now we will have comparable players in the form of Chisenhall, Kipnis, Phelps and Weglarz. But those 2003 and 2004 systems were significantly top-heavy in hitting talent. Going into the 2010 season, the Indians system arguably was top-heavy as well, with few exciting lower minors hitting prospects. The 2010 draft and the emergence of guys like Chun-Hsiu Chen alters that picture a bit.
The pitching comparisons are more striking. The current Indians system simply has many more and much better looking prospects than it did eight years ago. Adam Miller stuck out in 2004, in part, because he was one of the few strikeout/power pitchers in the organization. The Indians last season had more players at the AA/AAA level average more than a K/IP than the entire organization in either 2003 or 2004. The majority of Indians pitching prospects in 2003 and 2004 built their success on control. The current crop has their success dictated, at least in part, by strikeouts.
The Indians right now do not have the proven young talent at the big league level of the 2004 team...though they do have the potential to show that this season. They do, however, have more talent more evenly distributed throughout their system than anytime in the recent past. We lack corner outfield, corner infield and shortstop prospects...but we have so many arms, great depth up the middle and at catcher, and an interesting group of young guys at the positions we lack (i.e. LeVon Washington and Nick Bartolone). The challenging part of these comparisons is that Brandon Phillips, Adam Miller and Grady Sizemore would probably grade out as the best three prospects in any honest study (though you could probably throw Carlos Santana into that group). But the current system might occupy 15 of the next 20 slots. And the Indians success in 2005 and 2007 utilized only one of those guys....and he, by the way, is still here. By 2012 we have more options for quality guys to put around those centerpieces, particularly on the pitching staff, than we did back in 2003 and 2004.
A lot went right in 2005 and again in 2007. But Grady, Victor, Hafner, Sabathia and Westbrook weren't lucky accidents. Nor will the next group, many of whom you'll be able to watch in Cleveland this season.
Update:
Some numbers for those who like numbers.
System wide K%, BB%, K/BB for pitchers
- 2010: 21.3 K%, 8.6 BB%, 2.46 K/BB
- 2004: 18.9 K%, 8.7BB%, 2.18 K/BB
- 2003: 18.0 K%, 8.0 BB%, 2.29 K/BB
Average pitcher age:
- 2010: 22.8
- 2004: 24.0
- 2003: 24.5
Number of "interesting" pitching prospects per level (based on PS and Net)
| 2010 |
2004 |
2003 |
|
| AA/AAA starters |
7 |
4 |
4 |
| AA/AAA relievers |
9 |
6 |
5 |
| A/A+ starters |
6 |
4 |
4 |
| A/A+ relievers |
9 |
7 |
5 |
Average age of hitters:
- 2010: 23.0
- 2004: 23.8
- 2003: 23.3
System-wide triple-slash, BB%,K%
- 2010: .272/.340/.406, 9.0 BB%, 18.2 K%
- 2004: .272/.343/.427, 8.8 BB%, 18.2 K%
- 2003: .262/.333/.389, 9.0 BB%, 17.3 K%
Number of "interesting positional prospects (based on PS and Net)
| 2010 |
2004 |
2003 |
|
| AA/AAA up the middle |
6 |
6 |
5 |
| AA/AAA corners |
4 |
3 |
2 |
| A/A+ up the middle |
4 |
2 |
1 |
| A/A+ corners |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Enjoy...
40 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I’ve got more quantitative data on the comparisons between these system years, but to be honest it was a hassle to figure out how best to apply it and it basically just supports what I’ve said. If anyone is interested in specifics, though, I can probably produce them.
Great summary, but Bob Howry wasn’t exactly young in 2004. He was by then a 30 y.o. reclamation project.
I’m always interested in specifics, but I think what you’ve done here is great.
The persuasion is not inherent in the lobster.
Hard to believe Alex Escobar was only 24 in 2003.
"I want to be playing at the end of October or the end of September -- not just at the beginning of April." —Grady
In going through the minor league data for these seasons, the Indians changed approach with pitchers comes across fairly clearly. Call it the “Adam Miller” effect perhaps, but the Indians are definitely moving pitchers through the system more aggressively than they did a decade ago. It is harder to say they are targeting a different kind of pitcher resulting in the higher strikeout rates – that might merely be an artifact of the data to some degree – but the age difference is pretty significant. The number of significant mid-season promotions of pitchers has also increased.
This brings back nostalgia. I remember arguing with a friend about Carmona vs. Cabrera. I thought Carmona was awful but Cabrera was the heir apparent to Betancourt (this was after the 2005 season, a bit after these years). Wow, how wrong I was.
The young talent in the organization is really something i am getting excited about. I do think we had more star power with hitters, but we do seem to have a bit more overall depth. I think this group has very good potential (Wegz could be the groups pronk, Chiz could hit like Peralta but better, etc…) but right now they are much less developed than the prospects of ’03 and ’04. If some of these very young OF prospects develop well (or guys like Brantley/Laporta in the majors break out) , I think this group can have great 1-9 depth
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
I think it is pretty important that out of Brantley, LaPorta, Kipnis, Chisenhall, Phelps and Weglarz…we get at least three well-above average players.
Definitely. Also out of those 3, its important that we get one of Brantley and LaPorta. Wee need at least one guy who can play OF out of those 5, because we have much less mlb ready talent in the OF.
I teach good life choices. That’s why I almost didn’t graduate High School.
Intensive Purposes? I could care less...
your whole argument is a fallacy!
Great stuff, Adam. What immediately jumped out to me was how old Hafner was when he broke out; I had certainly known that at some point but, with the incredible disappointment he’s become, I’d wiped his trajectory from my memory or something. Hafner’s late blooming offers me some hope with regards to our current struggling slugger, Matthew Vincent LaPorta.
It’s easy to fall into the trap of assigning “normal” trajectories to players and, if they don’t meet the expectations of that trajectory, writing them off. However, with Hafner, we’ve got a great example of a guy who had minimal defensive skill, didn’t even debut till he was 25 or play a full season till he was 27, and yet was able to translate his huge AAA numbers into major league production when he arrived.
The problem at this point with LaPorta may be that we’ve seen too much—he was disappointing over a chunk of ABs, whereas Hafner gave a lot of reasons for hope over his initial stints in the majors.
Regardless, there’s real similarity in their minor league careers. Here’s to hoping LaPorta has his Hafner 2004 season in 2011.
Year Age Tm Lev Aff G PA H 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS TB
1997 20 Rangers Rk TEX 55 216 54 14 0 5 24 45 .286 .375 .439 .814 83
1998 21 Savannah A TEX 123 484 96 15 4 16 68 139 .237 .351 .412 .764 167
1999 22 Savannah A TEX 134 563 140 30 4 28 67 151 .292 .387 .546 .933 262
2000 23 Charlotte A+ TEX 122 528 151 34 1 22 67 86 .346 .447 .580 1.027 253
2001 24 Tulsa AA TEX 88 389 91 25 0 20 59 82 .282 .396 .545 .941 176
2002 25 Oklahoma AAA TEX 110 492 137 22 1 21 79 76 .342 .463 .559 1.022 224
2003 26 Buffalo AAA CLE 29 126 27 4 0 2 25 26 .270 .421 .370 .791 37
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 2/20/2011.
Year Age Tm Lev Aff G PA H 2B 3B HR BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS
2007 22 2 Teams A-Rk MIL 30 130 35 9 0 12 8 30 .304 .369 .696 1.065
2007 22 Helena Rk MIL 7 28 7 1 0 2 1 8 .259 .286 .519 .804
2007 22 WestVirginia A MIL 23 102 28 8 0 10 7 22 .318 .392 .750 1.142
2008 23 2 Teams AA MILCLE 101 433 101 24 2 22 49 75 .279 .386 .539 .924
2008 23 Huntsville AA MIL 84 366 87 23 2 20 45 63 .288 .402 .576 .978
2008 23 Akron AA CLE 17 67 14 1 0 2 4 12 .233 .299 .350 .649
2009 24 Columbus AAA CLE 93 393 101 23 2 17 42 56 .299 .388 .530 .917
2010 25 Columbus AAA CLE 18 81 25 4 0 5 12 10 .362 .457 .638 1.094
Provided by Baseball-Reference.com: View Original Table
Generated 2/20/2011.
Particularly, Matt’s AA career has a lot in common with Hafner’s stop there in 2001, and LaPorta’s 2009/2010 definitely resembles Hafner’s AAA numbers 2002. It’d be especially thrilling if LaPorta’s plate discipline in AAA in 2010 was reflective of a developmental jump in the same way that Hafner started to really dominate the plate in AAA. Worth noting as well that it took Hafner a few years in the majors before he was able to fully translate his excellent batter’s eye.
LaPorta has never had a raw performance in the minors like Hafner did age 23-25. He was being slow-walked through the minors as playing time was being reserved for Blalock and Teixeira, who at one point were considered the #1 and #2 best hitting prospects in all of baseball.
On the other hand … Hafner at 25 was destroying Triple-A, at 24 was destroying Double-A, at 23 was destroying Advanced-A. When you consider level, LaPorta’s performances at 23-24 are comparable to Hafner’s.
Age 25 is where we get stuck. It is hard to imagine that Hafner, rather than destroying Triple-A, would have looked totally lost in the majors as LaPorta did in 2010. Or is it? In 2003, Hafner had a measly 705 OPS through August 5 — so through his first 68 games and 230 PA in the majors, his OPS was about 709. So he really made it clear through his 26th birthday (6/3/03) without being any better than lousy at the plate, as a major leaguer — just as LaPorta has.
Hafner had a 918 OPS over the last 43 games of the 2003 season, followed by 993 in 2004, 1003 in 2005, and 1097 in 2006. So while it seems like it’s now-or-never time for LaPorta, maybe it’s not quite so urgent. Maybe it’s just … time.
We’re only a good spring away from cautiously optimistic!
The persuasion is not inherent in the lobster.
by Joel D on Feb 21, 2011 10:22 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
New site banner?
Where's your crown, KIng Nothing?
by Turkmenbashi on Feb 25, 2011 5:13 PM EST up reply actions
Good stuff, Adam. Though I wonder if the pitching numbers may be influenced by the post-steroid era – the organization’s numbers are better compared to 2003-2004, but that’s true over the rest of baseball as well. We saw a pretty dramatic shift in numbers at the MLB-level last year, and that may be the new norm. Still, I’m excited for the future.
You are right, though I kind of doubt the effect would be this large. The truth is it would take a lot of work to make these true apples-apples comparisons, which is why I initially stuck to a qualitative assessment. I would trust the picture created by the numbers, even if I wouldn’t weave too much of a story off any one number.
by APV on Feb 21, 2011 9:36 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Thanks for the great breakdown.
So I want to get more excited, so I guess I’m basically stuck on: The Tribe pretty clearly had the consensus #1 system in all of MLB heading into 2003 (BA had them at #1, I don’t know if Goldstein and Law were doing their trade back then). What is it this go round? B.A. at 7, MLB at 11, Law at 17?
Is everyone else underrating our system this go round or was the system more overrated last go round? Is it the depth thing again? Which to my knowledge really has never has been a thing we can hang our hat on… other than the time that the Lewis, Gutierrez, A Cabrera, R Perez cavalry (not highly rated guys save for Gutierrez I guess) helped fuel the 2007 ALCS run.
At the end of the day, we have one more “prospect that matters” in AA or above than we did last go round. And I realize we’re better at evaluating these guys than folks were 8 years ago.
I guess my frustration ends with the summary: “The Indians right now do not have the proven young talent at the big league level of the 2004 team”, and I suspect it’s really not that close. They’re drafting better sure, well we “think” they’re drafting better but let’s see where Chisenhall, Kipnis, White and Pomeranz play out.
And lastly, man Shapiro doesn’t seem to get a lot of flak in sum for the horrific Phillips, Kouzmanoff, Gutierrez, Scott etc deals. He’s universally praised for Colon and rightly so, but man did they make some clunkers too.
The Colon deal hardly is in isolation. Half of the 2005-2007 club was assembled via deals for prospects.
Context is everything. Everyone knows that no better trade was available for Phillips than Jeff Stevens, who eventually helped us acquire Chris Perez. Kouzmanoff and Scott have been complementary talents, and Gutierrez isn’t exactly a major star.
Bottom line, the hits — including Sizemore, Lee, Choo, Santana, and Hafner — have vastly outweighed the misses.
So I want to get more excited, so I guess I’m basically stuck on: The Tribe pretty clearly had the consensus #1 system in all of MLB heading into 2003 (BA had them at #1, I don’t know if Goldstein and Law were doing their trade back then). What is it this go round? B.A. at 7, MLB at 11, Law at 17?
I think it is the challenge of figuring out how to evaluate a large number of B/C grade prospects. Given the talent distribution in the majors, these guys are less likely to have significant individual contributions to a successful team, even if they are in some cases equally likely make it to the majors. Depth is also a challenge, to some extent, for an organization. As an organization you have a limited number of spots available throughout the system, and, particularly at the major league level, a limited window of time to see what guys look like in those spots. If you look at all the talent generated in that 2003/2004 time period, a lot of it flourished outside of Cleveland. Not just the spectacular bust/boom players, like Phillips and Guthrie, but also the guys who were never really given a shot like Macier Izturis and Luke Scott.
The challenge for the Indians is to figure out how to better capture the talent at the major league level, get a few of the players to raise their ceiling enough to be core contributors, and get the timing of it just right. That is no small task.
I still hope to put together a more analytical piece looking at quantity/quality before the season begins.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Evan Longoria confirms he’s dating Playboy model Jaime Edmondson
- Matt Moore understands Rays promise him nothing
- Stan Musial or not, it’s time for Albert Pujols to finally accept the ‘El Hombre’ nickname
- The 10 best things about being a Giants fan
- Spring Swing: Joe Maddon and Co. welcoming big expectations for Rays
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
