I really like Ronald Torreyes

[sneakypower]

this guy isn't getting enough love

 

what stands out the most to me is how unprecedented his performance has been, specifically in his advanced ability to make good contact, all the time; it's near impossible to think of a suitable precedent for a player with a similarly low K rate and strong hitting skills (evidenced by babip, iso). he's been three years younger than the rest of his league and his hit tool still so far dwarfs that of everybody else's by leaps and bounds it's unbelievable

 

here's how he compares so far to similar type extreme low-K hitters and players who've been cited by scouts as comps:

 

Torreyes (milb 5.4% K, .153 ISO, .375 babip)

 

Callaspo (milb 4.9% K, .119 ISO, .322 babip, 2 years older at each stop)

Pierre (milb 5.2% K, .062 ISO, .348 babip, 3 years older)

Keppinger (milb 5.7% K, .100 ISO, .332 babip, 4 years older)

Pedroia (milb 6.3% K, .145 ISO, .313 babip, 2 years older)

Polanco (milb 7.6% K, .066 ISO, .299 babip, 1 year older)

Eckstein (milb 8.2% K, .097 ISO, .316 babip, 4 years older)

Revere (milb 8.3% K, .077 ISO, .355 babip, 2 years older)

Altuve (milb 10.6% K, .154 ISO, .353 babip, 2 years older)

Kendrick (milb 12% K, .209 ISO, .387 babip, 2 years older)

 

sticking with Polanco, with a career MLB .301/.346/.406 line, he's averaged 3.75 WAR per 650 PA for his career (though aided by consistent +10 fielding), with five 4 WAR seasons. Howie Kendrick's also averaged 3.75 WAR with a .292/.329/.434 line (+10 defense & baserunning). is that kind of career too far-fetched?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

 

Everyone else can fawn over Junior Lake. I've got Torreyes and his elite hit tool on the top of my "guys I'm curious about for 2012" list.

[davell]

Awesome. I'm glad some others are excited about him too. I honestly thought he'd be a borderline top 100 guy this past year. I see no reason he won't continue to hit personally, maybe even add a bit more pop. He's actually a guy I'll be surprised with, if he doesn't make AA this year and the majors by the end of 2013 for good. I thought he was the key piece in the Marshall trade and I can't wait for the Cubs to have their own version of Wee Man playing 2B next to Castro longterm. On top of his hit tool, his makeup is evidently off the charts as well. I really think he'll move fast and he's definitely well inside my personal top 10 for us.

[craig]

I've got him 10th on my list. Only four spots ahead of Lake, but I feel like the superiority of Torreyes as a prospect is greater than that.

 

The best defensive 2B prospect in our minors, and projects as a really good big-league defender, both in terms of reliability and range/DP/playmaking. A true gift for contact.

 

Concerns are obvious: does he have any physical growth left and will he have any power/IsoP, and will he develop any IsoD? To have all of the offense rest on batting average is difficult, especially if that average needs to be sustained without any hits via un-fieldable HR’s.

 

If we knew he could grow into 8-12 HR power, I’d rank him even higher. Or if I knew he’d end up with a solid walk-rate and could project as a leadoff guy, I’d like him even more. Again, I’m partly trusting that management isn’t dumb enough to so highly value a guy whose power ceiling is Campana/Pierre-like.

 

I'm hopeful that he end up a little taller than we expect. I'm sure he's already much stockier than the list values.

 

I also hope that he might learn/be-persuaded to take more walks. He's short enough, he's got a good enough eye, he's good enough at handling breaking balls, and he's not toasted by 2-strike counts; if he decided that it was worth it to work counts deeper, at the expense of more K's and some loss of average, his OBP could become strong and he could become a very valuable starting 2B and perhaps leadoff guy.

 

I think he's an interesting case where, if management could persuade him that they want more walks, that perhaps he'd be able to accomodate.

 

Of course, a fair chance that he'll never be more offensively than Barney.

[Rob]

Since we acquired him, I had already kinda figured him as a Polanco type. It looks like I wasn't far off the mark... though I'm certainly intrigued to see the comparison favors Torreyes.

[toonsterwu]

I actually think he's gotten quite a bit of love here, and elsewhere. I mean, I'm probably one of the few people that isn't crazy about him, and even I can see a borderline case for being 10th on my list (although I have him in the 20's still, adjusted my list a bit from last time, so as of now, have him 21st).

 

I'm intrigued with Torreyes, but whether it's fair or not, I want to see him continue hitting in the upper levels before ranking him higher. I've made my argument as to why before, so I'll just take Jim Callis' words from the AskBA in early January here - "but he's also 5-foot-7 and lacks a second standout tool, so he's really going to have to max out what he has to make it as a big league regular." I'm not a big fan of Altuve, who I think was ridiculously over-hyped this summer, but at a similar stage, I think Altuve was a better prospect. He strikes out a fair amount more than Torreyes, but not that much to be concerned with the overall numbers, yet he showed more power. If Torreyes shows some power development, then I'd be much more intrigued, but I can't find many people that think that will happen.

 

As with all Cubs prospects that I'm not high on, I hope he proves me wrong. He does add much needed middle infield talent that could be in the upper levels soon, as we had thinned out a bit.

[sneakypower]

saying Torreyes needs to "show some power development" is really bizarre to me; i'm not sure whether he'll keep it up as he goes up the ladder, but he's shown more than enough power so far to suggest he's not purely a slap hitter like Pierre and Campana

 

consider, Torreyes has averaged an XBH every 9.95 AB; Josh Vitters has averaged an XBH every 10.38 AB

[toonsterwu]

Wait, where'd you get that number? He only had 17 XBH's in 278 AB's (306 PA's) last year, with an ISO of .101. I haven't heard any scouting reports that suggest that, with the way he swings, that he should develop quite a bit more pop than that.

 

Edit: Oh, I'm guessing you included his rookie league numbers. When the power numbers take such a big drop from rookie to A, I tend to think that I should take the high number with a grain of salt, particularly if the scouting reports suggest that the lower number fits in line with his swing and approach. I expect he might do better as he matures at the plate, but I doubt he'll be anywhere near those rookie level numbers to justify, as of now, using a combination of the two to suggest that he has power, but that's me.

 

Edit number 2: In his defense, though, DeShields often asked him to focus on putting the ball in play, and I know there are some that felt that he could've hit for more power, but because he was hitting 2nd behind Hamilton, he was asked to fill a role.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Of course he could develop a lot more power as he matures, but a .101 ISOD as an 18 year old in the Midwest League isn't exactly slap-hitting.

 

By comparison, Juan Pierre was 20 when he played in mid-A, and he put up a .070 ISOD. Campana was 23 and had .057 in 18 games.

[sneakypower]

Wait, where'd you get that number? He only had 17 XBH's in 278 AB's (306 PA's) last year, with an ISO of .101. I haven't heard any scouting reports that suggest that, with the way he swings, that he should develop quite a bit more pop than that.

 

Edit: Oh, I'm guessing you included his rookie league numbers. When the power numbers take such a big drop from rookie to A, I tend to think that I should take the high number with a grain of salt, particularly if the scouting reports suggest that the lower number fits in line with his swing and approach. I expect he might do better as he matures at the plate, but I doubt he'll be anywhere near those rookie level numbers to justify, as of now, using a combination of the two to suggest that he has power, but that's me.

 

Edit number 2: In his defense, though, DeShields often asked him to focus on putting the ball in play, and I know there are some that felt that he could've hit for more power, but because he was hitting 2nd behind Hamilton, he was asked to fill a role.

i agree with what you're saying, but i also think with guys like him it's harder to rely on scouts too much because they obviously are going to tend to pigeonhole him based on size alone

 

i mean, check out this draft profile on Dustin Pedroia:

COMMENT: PHYSICALLY MAXED OUT. SMALL, SCRAPPY FRAME W/ AVG STRENGTH FOR SIZE. SIMILAR TO DAVID ECKSTEIN. EVEN STANCE W/ FLEXED KNEES. SMALL LOAD & WEIGHT SHIFT. STEPS IN BUCKET. AVG BAT SPEED, EVEN PLANE BAT CONTROL W/ CONSISTENT CONTACT. HITS WHERE PITCHED. LOTS OF DOUBLES TO GAPS. INSTINCTIVE DEFENDER W/ SOFT HANDS, WORKS GROUND-UP, BALL DISAPPEARS. PLAYS WELL ABOVE TOOLS. HEADSY BASEBALL RAT W/ PLUS INSTINCTS. KNOWS HOW TO PLAY THE GAME. GUY YOU WANT ON YOUR TEAM. DOES WHAT IT TAKES TO WIN.

[toonsterwu]

That report is basically what Pedroia became, though. A guy who has good gap power, will hit some out, but won't be a consistently solid 20+ HR guy (at least up to this point in his career).

 

Don't get me wrong, I am often wary of ANY scouting report, particularly as it relates to young guys (and specifically, draft picks ... still think Lindor is getting WAY over-hyped, not saying he's not good, but I see some folks putting him top 30 or so, and I think that's way high). That said, in scouts defense, they are right more often than they are wrong, and when they are wrong, it's often because of physical development or a change in something (swing plane, approach, etcetras ... for example, no one is critiquing LaHair's old reports coming up the Mariners system, because they were right for the time, but he's made substantial changes in our system to add power).

[jersey cubs fan]

That said, in scouts defense, they are right more often than they are wrong

 

Really?

 

and when they are wrong, it's often because of physical development or a change in something

 

That's convenient.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's not my fault I was wrong, he developed differently than I thought he would!

[weis21]

or something changed

[toonsterwu]

That said, in scouts defense, they are right more often than they are wrong

 

Really?

 

and when they are wrong, it's often because of physical development or a change in something

 

That's convenient.

 

Sure, I'll stand by that. Now, admittedly, I've seen more reports for football than I have baseball, but you'd be surprised how accurate some reports are. Of course they are wrong a fair amount as well, but you'd be surprised how some reports are. The thing is, frame analysis is still as much guesswork as anything, even for the NFL. They get it right more often than not, but I can think of examples where guys bodies suggested potential for some level of development that never came about (in fact, can think of one NFL tackle off the top).

 

I tossed in the "change in something" part because there was a minor leaguer several years back, not in the Cubs, who looked really dang good, for lack of a better term. A lot of glossy reports on him, but due to coaching, he was advised to make some changes to his stance. It simply wasn't advisable, and everything blew up. Saw the old reports for the guy and talked to some folks that pointed out the change in his stance and why that changed things. Doesn't mean the folks that scouted him were wrong before about his potential/ability, but it was an unexpected change that they didn't forecast because it wasn't thought of as a concern by some).

[weis21]

I see your point. I was just giving you a hard time because "change in something" reads so incredibly vague at first glance.

 

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

A newer, younger LeMahieu...With more time to dream and so on...Very interesting kind of player/athlete in the system. Cubs like guys who make contact too...well everyone does.

[Rob]

A newer, younger LeMahieu...With more time to dream and so on...Very interesting kind of player/athlete in the system. Cubs like guys who make contact too...well everyone does.

 

Torreyes posted a .101 ISO last year as an 18 year old in A ball.

 

LeMahieu only posted an ISO over .100 twice. Once was during a 3 game stint in rookie ball. The other time was to start the 2011 season, as a 23 year old in AA. At every other stop along the way he was at .087 or lower.

 

There's reason to be a bit more optimistic about Torreyes' potential power output.

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

A newer, younger LeMahieu...With more time to dream and so on...Very interesting kind of player/athlete in the system. Cubs like guys who make contact too...well everyone does.

 

Torreyes posted a .101 ISO last year as an 18 year old in A ball.

 

LeMahieu only posted an ISO over .100 twice. Once was during a 3 game stint in rookie ball. The other time was to start the 2011 season, as a 23 year old in AA. At every other stop along the way he was at .087 or lower.

 

There's reason to be a bit more optimistic about Torreyes' potential power output.

 

Don't worry about my bs with Lemahieu. I am insanely higher on that player than I should be. Mostly I just was referring to the contact and defense anyway. Torreyes is a worthy heir for me to pin down as 2B of the future.

[craig]

A newer, younger LeMahieu...With more time to dream and so on...Very interesting kind of player/athlete in the system. Cubs like guys who make contact too...well everyone does.

 

Heh, fun comparison. I think Lemahieu was an excellent prospect. But he never did grow into any more effective power. Torreyes still has some time. On the other hand, Lemahieu had the height and levers where back when he was 18 or 19 it would have been very reasonable to project more power. Short Torreyes, not so much. Heh, if I've got two 18-year-olds who are elite contact guys, I'll normally take the power projection on the one who's over 6-foot rather than the short one!

 

The other difference, I think, is that while Lemahieu didn't make many errors, I don't think people really thought he had the range or quickness or turn-the-DP-footwork to play a good defensive 2B. He was going to need to be a reliable defender but one who would make it on his bat despite his defense, at 2B. Torreyes, I think the Cubs believe he has a chance to be an asset defender at 2B. We'll see, of course. What management projects and what really happens often don't match, as we well know.

[sneakypower]

at age 18, Torreyes already has more HR than LeMahieu managed his entire milb career

 

and LeMahieu struck out more than twice as often, and was two years older in doing so

 

he's not very good

[jumbo]

I posted this here on 1/8/12

-----------

 

I posted this on another site about Torreyes:

 

 

Player Age Level KRate BB Rate AVG/OBP/SLG/OPS

Player A 19 A+ 10.6 4.9 299/334/388/722

Player B 18 A 6.3 4.6 356/391/457/848

 

Player B is Torreyes (fueled by a 375 BABIP)

Player A is Starlin Castro (with a 331 BABIP)

 

I'm not saying Torreyes will be in the majors in two years like Castro, but they both possess a great contact tool. Torreyes may have a better contact tool than Castro if you believe that his strikeout rate can indicate that. Maybe someone else can provide some insight there.

I also was impressed that his slugging was so high, but I guess that is also impacted by his high BABIP.

 

My main point is that I'm excited about Torreyes

-------

 

I still am really excited about this guy

[PriortoTheoIhadWood]

at age 18, Torreyes already has more HR than LeMahieu managed his entire milb career

 

and LeMahieu struck out more than twice as often, and was two years older in doing so

 

he's not very good

 

Yeah yeah it's been said... You're taking the comp way more seriously than it was intended anyway. It literally ends at the very non-specific "guys who make contact and can handle 2B"...really not much need to spell out the differences between an 18 year old 5'8 IFA and a 22/23 YO 6'3" American college trained athlete...it was a throw away statement more playing in my ridiculous obsession with Lemahieu as a player.

 

Also, Lemahieu isn't a future super star but he'll have a ten year career...His problem is that the Cubs aren't in a position where a guy like him would be very useful. Admittedly that's because his skills are limited. Mostly I like what he can do.