Nate Silver likes Soto

[Geech]

A lot. In his recent article on catching prospects, Soto topped out the list as the number one catching prospect in baseball, better than Wieters, Towles or Clement.

 

Here's what Nate said about him:

 

All the arguments against Geovany Soto deserving a high ranking are fairly specious. Yes, he hadn’t done much prior to 2007. But volumes of research have shown that as long as you take your weighted averages properly—and that’s the sort of thing PECOTA is good at—having one bad year followed by one fantastic one is no better and no worse than having two average years consecutively. Yes, Soto was repeating his level at Iowa—for the second time, actually—but the DTs build in specific adjustments for repeaters, so that is already accounted for.. Yes, Sosa[sic] is a tiny bit old for a prospect, but it’s not atypical for catchers to develop slowly. Although he does not make Soto’s comparables list, the guy I keep thinking about is Jorge Posada, who has a similar range of skills and did not become a big league regular until the age of 26.

 

And here's his overall list of young catchers in baseball, including non-rookies:

 

1. Joe Mauer, Twins (25) 358.5

2. Russell Martin, Dodgers (25) 269.9

3. Brian McCann, Braves (24) 226.0

4. Geovany Soto, Cubs (25) 166.9

5. Jeff Clement, Mariners (24) 149.3

6. Jarrod Saltalamacchia, Rangers (23) 144.0

7. J.R. Towles, Astros (24) 115.0

8. Jesus Flores, Nationals (23) 113.4

9. Matt Wieters, Orioles (22) 105.2

10. Chris Iannetta, Rockies (25) 98.0

[seanimal]

Me too, Nate, me too.

 

I mean, nothing's guaranteed, but Soto will be interesting to watch, if not downright fun, this season.

[erik316wttn]

Geovany Soto.

[Geech]

A review of Nate's Upside stat, for those of you wondering what that triple digit number next to his name means.

 

All About Upside

 

While most of these changes tend to make the PECOTA more nuanced and complicated, we’ve decided to simplify the rating criteria for these prospect rankings themselves. Rather than combine two separate versions of a player’s Peak rating, as we did for last year’s lists, we’re simply going to focus on his Upside score.

 

Upside gives credit only for performance above league average at the player’s position, and zero credit for everything else. If a player winds up being a bench guy in the majors, or gets stuck at Double-A, or quits baseball to work in a lumber yard--none of these outcomes is desirable. On the other hand, the cost of employing a prospect is relatively low, both in terms of financial outlay and opportunity cost (a player can simply be left in the minors if he’s not good enough for MLB), so assigning negative points for a below-average or below-replacement level performance isn’t quite fair. Upside works around this negative value problem by giving credit for the good, while treating all different types of bad performance as having zero (but not negative) value. The version of Upside that we’re using here is the peak-adjusted variant, which measures a player’s most valuable five-year window up through and including his age 28 season (or simply his next five years of performance if he’s already age 25 or older).

 

I realize that all of this is a bit complicated, and I encourage you to explore the PECOTA glossary if you’re the type that likes the dirty details. But the intuition behind our methodology is fairly simple: we’re attempting to measure the degree and probability of above-average performance while the player is under the control of his parent club. This is the real fruit of the unforgiving labor of scouting and development: getting impact performances from players who are still cheap under the reserve clause, or in arbitration.

 

This definition is very important to keep in mind when we tell you, for example, that Dustin Pedroia is at least as valuable as Delmon Young. Young is two years younger than Pedroia, and has a more athletic profile that will likely age better into his thirties. He is probably at least a 2:1 favorite to produce more value over the course of his entire major league career. But he is not such a favorite to produce more value in the years during which he’s under club control. You can only get six years and change out of a prospect before his arbitration clock runs out, and they won’t necessarily be his best years, especially if he reaches the major leagues very young. That Delmon Young is likely to be more valuable than Dustin Pedroia when he’s 32 doesn’t matter one whit to the Red Sox or Devil Rays. Both players will be long gone from their parent systems by then, or will have had the chance to negotiate deals at market price. This is very important to understand, and it’s a point that I didn’t emphasize enough last year. I do happen to think that it’s the “right” way to value prospects, but we’ll save that discussion for another time.

 

As we’re using peak-adjusted Upside as our sole ranking criteria, we’ve made a couple of tweaks to increase its viability. Firstly, for position players, Upside now accounts for defensive as well as offensive performance. I realize that some of you won’t be thrilled with using minor league fielding numbers, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind:

 

1. The fielding projections jibe with scouting reports far more often than not. Cameron Maybin is projected to be an average-or-better major league center fielder, Brignac is projected to have some trouble handling shortstop.

2. Although fielding ratings can be hard to pin down, PECOTA accounts for this by regressing them to the mean fairly heavily.

 

Most importantly, If we don’t account for fielding, then we run into problems with players whose defense is grossly inadequate for their positions, and will almost certainly wind up playing elsewhere if and when they hit the majors. Preston Mattingly, for example, produced -7 fielding runs in just 30 games at shortstop in his debut; it’s obvious from both a scouting and statistical perspective that he’s going to end up at an infield corner. If we treated Mattingly as a shortstop for Upside purposes without accounting for his defense, we’d wind up vastly overrating him versus players that can legitimately handle the position.

 

The second tweak is that we fudge a bit on the definition of ‘average’ for pitchers, giving starting pitchers credit toward their Upside score beginning with ERAs slightly below league average, while requiring somewhat above-average performance from relief pitchers. The rationale for this stems from the research I did for the starter-reliever adjustment, which reveals that a typical pitcher can expect to have an ERA about 25% higher if he pitches as a starter instead of out of the bullpen. The difference between leaguewide ERAs for starters and relievers is somewhat less than 25%, but this is because of selection effects: since starters pitch more innings than relievers, they tend to be a team’s better pitchers. This adjustment gives back some of the credit to starting pitchers, which in turn produces rankings that are a bit more intuitive. Indeed, you’ll find a handful of pitchers rated by PECOTA as among the very best prospects in the game, which wasn’t the case last year.

 

Finally, if you’re having trouble interpreting the Upside scores, you can use the following as a guide, adapted from Kevin’s categories in his team-by-team rankings.

 

Upside Score Definition

100+ Excellent Prospect. One of the better prospects in baseball. Strong chance of long major league career, perhaps with several All-Star appearances. May have Hall of Fame potential, especially if prospect is young or has a rating of 150 or higher.

50-100 Very Good Prospect. Strong chance of a meaningful major league career, with some legitimate chance at stardom. Best-case outcomes may involve some Hall of Fame potential.

25-50 Good Prospect. Reasonable chance of a meaningful major league career, but only an outside chance at stardom.

10-25 Average Prospect. Some chance of a meaningful major league career, but more likely to end up on the major league fringe. Highly unlikely to make two or more All-Star appearances.

0-10 Marginal Prospect. Very little chance of becoming a major league regular, excluding extreme mitigating circumstances affecting the player’s statistical record.

[BCVM22]

If Soto performs 3/4 as well as every publication and expert seem to think he will, he'll be a stud.

[sneakypower]

The forecasts are puzzling, for the large part. In the 7 year forecast for Wieters, they have him topping out at 15 HRs and a .437 slugging. Similarly, they don't have clement slugging .450 until 5 years from now. I'm curious why JR House isn't on the list, seeing what they project for him. But if the upside definition is completely divorced from the forecast, then I guess I'm making a moot point, I haven't read all of it yet.

[SABR Gamer]

GeoVANY Soto is a stud. Edited March 21, 2008 by New York Cubs Fan

[Post Count Padder]

Geovany Soto.

[SABR Gamer]

Geovany Soto.

[SABR Gamer]

I don't think I have done that yet, so I just felt like I needed to try.

[Vanilla Ice]

Geovany Soto.

[Post Count Padder]

I don't think I have done that yet, so I just felt like I needed to try.

And how did it feel?

[anabiono]

instead of listing numbers in his stat boxes they should just list SOTO

 

avg. - SOTO

HR - SOTO

BB - SOTO

OPS - SOTO

RBI - SOTO

 

GEOVANY SOTO IS AN OVERLORD!

[SABR Gamer]

I don't think I have done that yet, so I just felt like I needed to try.

And how did it feel?

 

Pretty darn rewarding. I didn't know how much I was missing out.

[erik316wttn]

instead of listing numbers in his stat boxes they should just list SOTO

 

avg. - SOTO

HR - SOTO

BB - SOTO

OPS - SOTO

RBI - SOTO

 

GEOVANY SOTO IS AN OVERLORD!

 

Geovany Soto has been to Mars. That is why there is no life on Mars.

[imb]

instead of listing numbers in his stat boxes they should just list SOTO

 

avg. - SOTO

HR - SOTO

BB - SOTO

OPS - SOTO

RBI - SOTO

 

GEOVANY SOTO IS AN OVERLORD!

 

Geovany Soto has been to Mars. That is why there is no life on Mars.

 

no one has been to mars

 

Past missions

 

The first successful fly-by mission to Mars was NASA's Mariner 4, launched in 1964. The first successful objects to land on the surface were two Soviet probes, Mars 2 and Mars 3 from the Mars probe program, launched in 1971, but both lost contact within seconds of landing. Then came the 1975 NASA launches of the Viking program, which consisted of two orbiters, each having a lander; both landers successfully touched down in 1976 and remained operational for 6 and 3 years, for Viking 1 and Viking 2 respectively. The Viking landers relayed the first color pictures of Mars[70] and also mapped the surface of Mars so well that the images are still sometimes used to this day. The Soviet probes Phobos 1 and 2 were sent to Mars in 1988 to study Mars and its two moons, unfortunately Phobos 1 lost contact on the way to Mars, and Phobos 2, while successfully photographing Mars and Phobos, failed just before it was set to release two landers on Phobos's surface.

 

Following the 1992 failure of the Mars Observer orbiter, NASA launched the Mars Global Surveyor in 1996. This mission was a complete success, having finished its primary mapping mission in early 2001. Contact was lost with the probe in November 2006 during its third extended program, spending exactly 10 operational years in space. Only a month after the launch of the Surveyor, NASA launched the Mars Pathfinder, carrying a robotic exploration vehicle Sojourner, which landed in the Ares Vallis on Mars. This mission was another big success, and received much publicity, partially due to the many spectacular images that were sent back to Earth.[71]

 

Current missions

Spirit's lander on Mars

Spirit's lander on Mars

 

In 2001 NASA launched the successful Mars Odyssey orbiter, which is still in orbit as of March 2008, and the ending date has been extended to September 2008. Odyssey's Gamma Ray Spectrometer detected significant amounts of hydrogen in the upper metre or so of Mars's regolith. This hydrogen is thought to be contained in large deposits of water ice.[72]

 

In 2003, the ESA launched the Mars Express craft, consisting of the Mars Express Orbiter and the lander Beagle 2. Beagle 2 failed during descent and was declared lost in early February 2004.[73] In early 2004 the Planetary Fourier Spectrometer team announced it had detected methane in the Martian atmosphere. ESA announced in June 2006 the discovery of aurorae on Mars.[74]

 

Also in 2003, NASA launched the twin Mars Exploration Rovers named Spirit (MER-A) and Opportunity (MER-B). Both missions landed successfully in January 2004 and have met or exceeded all their targets. Among the most significant scientific returns has been conclusive evidence that liquid water existed at some time in the past at both landing sites. Martian dust devils and windstorms have occasionally cleaned both rovers' solar panels, and thus increased their lifespan.[75]

 

On August 12, 2005 the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter probe was launched toward the planet, arriving in orbit on March 10, 2006 to conduct a two-year science survey. The orbiter will map the Martian terrain and weather to find suitable landing sites for upcoming lander missions. It also contains an improved telecommunications link to Earth, with more bandwidth than all previous missions combined.

 

The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter snapped the first image of a series of active avalanches near the planet's north pole, scientists said March 3, 2008.[76]

 

Future missions

Mars Polar Lander practices robotic arm control at a test site in Death Valley.

Mars Polar Lander practices robotic arm control at a test site in Death Valley.

 

The next scheduled mission to Mars, not counting the brief flyby by the Dawn spacecraft to Ceres and Vesta, is the NASA Phoenix Mars lander, which launched August 4, 2007 and is scheduled to arrive on the north polar region of Mars on May 25, 2008. The lander has a robotic arm with a 2.5 m reach and capable of digging a meter into the Martian soil. The lander will be in an area with an 80% chance of ice being less than 30 cm below the surface, and has a microscopic camera capable of resolving to one-thousandth the width of a human hair.[77]

 

Phoenix will be followed by the Mars Science Laboratory in 2009, a bigger, faster (90 m/hour), and smarter version of the Mars Exploration Rovers. Experiments include a laser chemical sample that can deduce the make-up of rocks at a distance of 13 m.[78]

 

The joint Russian and Chinese Phobos-Grunt sample-return mission, to return samples of Mars's moon Phobos, is scheduled for a 2009 launch. In 2012 the ESA plans to launch its first Rover to Mars, the ExoMars rover will be capable of drilling 2 m into the soil in search of organic molecules.[79][80]

 

The Finnish-Russian MetNet mission will consist of sending tens of small landers on the Martian surface in order to establish a wide-spread surface observation network to investigate the planet's atmospheric structure, physics and meteorology.[81] A precursor mission using 1-2 landers is scheduled for launch in 2009 or 2011. One possibility is a piggyback launch on the Russian Phobos Grunt mission.[82] Other launches will take place in the launch windows extending to 2019.

 

Manned Mars exploration by the United States has been explicitly identified as a long-term goal in the Vision for Space Exploration announced in 2004 by US President George W. Bush.[83] NASA and Lockheed Martin have begun work on the Orion spacecraft, formerly the Crew Exploration Vehicle, which is currently scheduled to send a human expedition to Earth's moon by 2020 as a stepping stone to an expedition to Mars thereafter.

 

The European Space Agency hopes to land humans on Mars between 2030 and 2035.[84] This will be preceded by successively larger probes, starting with the launch of the ExoMars probe and a Mars Sample Return Mission.

 

On September 28, 2007, NASA administrator Michael D. Griffin stated that NASA aims to put a man on Mars by 2037: in 2057, we should be celebrating 20 years of man on Mars.[85]

[Post Count Padder]

Talk about a buzzkill.

[David]

Talk about a buzzkill.

 

Sometimes, the truth hurts.