Minor League Discussion & Boxes 7-25-10

[Outshined_One]

Jeter was consistently a 5 win player for most of his career. When he was 20 he tore up several MiLB levels like Castro, but didn't get his shot in MLB until the next year, where he struggled. There's no reason that Castro isn't capable of providing the same type of value, albeit in a slightly different way(less OBP, more defense, maybe a touch more pop eventually). That doesn't mean it's a stone cold lock, but that's why the word ceiling was used. I mean, Castro's already on his way to a 4 WAR at age 20, and anyone can see that he's not a finished product. It's not terribly difficult to envision him regularly being slightly better than he is now.

 

Jeter also had peak years of 8 and 7.8 WAR; I'm skeptical as to whether Castro's peak years will be comparable. I'm also skeptical as to whether Castro will be much of a consistent power threat in his career. Frankly, I'll be shocked if he ever hits more than 15 HRs in a season.

 

Don't get me wrong, I think Castro's special and the Cubs are incredibly lucky to have him. I'm just having trouble getting it through my head that he could provide as much value to the Cubs as Jeter's brought to the Yankees. I think the last time the Cubs had a position player post a WAR higher than 6 was Sammy Sosa in 2001.

[Guest]

I misread davell's post and didn't realize he was saying Jeter was Castro's ceiling. I still think it's unlikely Castro gets there (and yes, I know what great company Castro shares with his big league success at age 20) but that's fair.

[Tyrant]

Neutralized for luck: .282/.340/.459/.799

 

Neutralized for luck & park: .281/.339/.448/.787

 

So, even when you neutralize for luck, he still wasn't very good.

[Guest]

Neutralized for luck: .282/.340/.459/.799

 

Neutralized for luck & park: .281/.339/.448/.787

 

So, even when you neutralize for luck, he still wasn't very good.

 

Yeah, no one's saying that Vitters woulda torn apart the Southern League if it weren't for that darn misfortune. But an .800 OPS in AA as a 20 year old is nothing to be disappointed in either. Only 14 qualified hitters in the Southern League have an OPS greater than .800 right now.

[jersey cubs fan]

Neutralized for luck: .282/.340/.459/.799

 

Neutralized for luck & park: .281/.339/.448/.787

 

So, even when you neutralize for luck, he still wasn't very good.

 

Yeah, no one's saying that Vitters woulda torn apart the Southern League if it weren't for that darn misfortune. But an .800 OPS in AA as a 20 year old is nothing to be disappointed in either. Only 14 qualified hitters in the Southern League have an OPS greater than .800 right now.

 

And another six have an OPS between the theoretical 787 and 800. And how many guys between Vitters and there "should" have a higher OPS? Vitters has no plate discipline. That can put a strain on your BABIP. And I don't know how much faith people should put into measuring line drive percentage either. His strikeout rate is up, and his 2010 total OPS is down from his so far fairly pedestrian professional career.

 

2010 - .247/.312/.405

career - .275/.317/.435

 

Luck may have played a part in how horribly his AA numbers were, but I don't think it actually made it bad. The bottom line is he was rushed and has not performed in either A+ or AA (676 overall OPS at both levels). My frustration with Vitters is much more about the Cubs and how they have dealt with him. The promotions to both high A and AA have been unjustified and unnecessary, and the performance since the promotions has been very disappointing. His value as a prospect has declined, meaning his trade value is lower, and he's no closer to taking over the third base job (competently) than if they had been more reasonable with his promotion schedule.

[Tyrant]

Neutralized for luck: .282/.340/.459/.799

 

Neutralized for luck & park: .281/.339/.448/.787

 

So, even when you neutralize for luck, he still wasn't very good.

 

Yeah, no one's saying that Vitters woulda torn apart the Southern League if it weren't for that darn misfortune. But an .800 OPS in AA as a 20 year old is nothing to be disappointed in either. Only 14 qualified hitters in the Southern League have an OPS greater than .800 right now.

 

Right. I wouldn't say I'm disappointed in Vitters, but I'm having a hard time getting excited about him. I'm still pretty confident he'll reach the majors, but he's not showing too many signs of being an impact player. Maybe my hopes were too high after his hot stretch in Peoria last year.

[davearm2]

Neutralized for luck: .282/.340/.459/.799

 

Neutralized for luck & park: .281/.339/.448/.787

 

So, even when you neutralize for luck, he still wasn't very good.

 

Yeah, no one's saying that Vitters woulda torn apart the Southern League if it weren't for that darn misfortune. But an .800 OPS in AA as a 20 year old is nothing to be disappointed in either. Only 14 qualified hitters in the Southern League have an OPS greater than .800 right now.

How many have an OPS greater than .800 after all of the neutralizing though? Vitters isn't there even with the hocus pocus.

[Guest]

Yes. Hocus pocus.

[Guest]

Neutralized for luck: .282/.340/.459/.799

 

Neutralized for luck & park: .281/.339/.448/.787

 

So, even when you neutralize for luck, he still wasn't very good.

 

Yeah, no one's saying that Vitters woulda torn apart the Southern League if it weren't for that darn misfortune. But an .800 OPS in AA as a 20 year old is nothing to be disappointed in either. Only 14 qualified hitters in the Southern League have an OPS greater than .800 right now.

How many have an OPS greater than .800 after all of the neutralizing though? Vitters isn't there even with the hocus pocus.

 

Again, the point is not that Vitters is one of the best hitters in the league with bad luck, the point is that he was very unlucky. The Southern League bit was to point out that a (even normalized) .800 OPS in a pitcher's league is much better than it might appear by just looking at the number without context.

[davearm2]

Yes. Hocus pocus.

Good luck getting reliable, accurate and consistent LD rates in the Southern League.

 

Heck it's somewhat sketchy even at the MLB level.

[Guest]

You don't have to have a surgical LD% to realize that having a .252 BABIP is remarkably unlucky.

[Rob]

You don't have to have a surgical LD% to realize that having a .252 BABIP is remarkably unlucky.

 

HOCUS POCUS, HE SAID.

[davearm2]

You don't have to have a surgical LD% to realize that having a .252 BABIP is remarkably unlucky.

 

HOCUS POCUS, HE SAID.

I knew that would get a rise out of some of you folks.

 

To deny the practical limitations of some of these advanced metrics puts your head just as squarely in the sand as those that ignore them altogether.

[risico]

He was fine in high A ball. He was starting to hit but I don't feel he had it entirely figured out at that level. There was no reason to promote him to AA but as has already been stated, bad luck played a huge role in his performance.

 

He still needs to be more disciplined at the plate, but you can see that he's open to working on the flaws of his game.

[Guest]

I knew that would get a rise out of some of you folks.

Isn't that the very definition of trolling?

[davearm2]

I knew that would get a rise out of some of you folks.

Isn't that the very definition of trolling?

Making a point that you know others will disagree with = trolling?

 

I guess you were trolling with your prospect list too. ;)

Edited July 31, 2010 by davearm2

[Guest]

I knew that would get a rise out of some of you folks.

Isn't that the very definition of trolling?

Making a point that you know others will disagree with = trolling? Not in my book.

Saying something with the express purpose of "getting a rise out of some of you folks" = trolling.

[davearm2]

I knew that would get a rise out of some of you folks.

Isn't that the very definition of trolling?

Making a point that you know others will disagree with = trolling? Not in my book.

Saying something with the express purpose of "getting a rise out of some of you folks" = trolling.

That wasn't the express purpose.

[Guest]

I knew that would get a rise out of some of you folks.

Isn't that the very definition of trolling?

Making a point that you know others will disagree with = trolling? Not in my book.

Saying something with the express purpose of "getting a rise out of some of you folks" = trolling.

That wasn't the express purpose.

Gee, okay. I'll disregard the person who said so up above.

[CubColtPacer]

I knew that would get a rise out of some of you folks.

Isn't that the very definition of trolling?

Making a point that you know others will disagree with = trolling? Not in my book.

Saying something with the express purpose of "getting a rise out of some of you folks" = trolling.

That wasn't the express purpose.

 

I think he's saying that if you had used a softer phrase than hocus pocus you would have gotten your point across without making people upset. That choice of words wasn't needed to make your point that converting numbers like that is an inexact science. If you knew that specific phrase was going to cause problems, it might have been good to change it so people can focus on your argument.

[davearm2]

Gee, okay. I'll disregard the person who said so up above.

Did you know you would get a rise out of some folks when you posted your prospect rankings?

 

Yeah I thought you did.

[ScrubMD]

Gee, okay. I'll disregard the person who said so up above.

Did you know you would get a rise out of some folks when you posted your prospect rankings?

 

Yeah I thought you did.

 

It would have been the same thing if he said something like, "and you're stupid if you disagree."

[Guest]

Gee, okay. I'll disregard the person who said so up above.

Did you know you would get a rise out of some folks when you posted your prospect rankings?

 

Yeah I thought you did.

I'm pretty sure I didn't phrase my rankings in such a way as to elicit a certain response, though.

 

This is a silly argument, though. You're fully aware that you could have said what you did in such a way that wouldn't have been provoking the people you have already acknowledged you were trying to get a rise out of.

[davell]

Am I missing something here? I haven't seen Tim's midseson rankings yet......Even if Vitters is 1 on his list...... 8-) Either way, I don't see how feeling like a guy is our best prospect makes for trying to get a rise out of folks.

[davearm2]

This is a silly argument, though. You're fully aware that you could have said what you did in such a way that wouldn't have been provoking the people you have already acknowledged you were trying to get a rise out of.

It's a silly argument predicated on your confusing knowing with trying.

 

I wasn't trying to get a rise out of folks, but I knew my opinion would be unpopular with the saber-savvy set.