Minor League Discussion & Boxes, 6-26-16

[davell]

I know some here hate Arguello, but I respect his minors coverage. He keeps saying Rice is struggling defensively this season and is unsure if he's a viable C moving forward. He talks to scouts all the time, so I tend to think he has a reason to say that.

[Tim]

I was just checking out the new entries in the rankings.

 

Thrilho - did you mean to leave out Contreras?

Yeah, figured he's up for good and wanted to see Jimenez at number 1. But I'll put Contreras in at number 1 if we're still ranking him.

Yeah, we'll rank him until he's not eligible.

[Thrilho]

I was just checking out the new entries in the rankings.

 

Thrilho - did you mean to leave out Contreras?

Also, looking forward to checking out the other top 30s. I wanted to wait until I got mine out so I wasn't biased. I respect the opinions of you some of you mokes and wanted to see if I could do it on my own. It's likely that many revisions are coming.

[Tim]

btw - the really fun part to me about doing it this way is when I start to get trend charts up to see guys like Albertos shooting up the rankings with each start (hopefully).

[Thrilho]

I was just checking out the new entries in the rankings.

 

Thrilho - did you mean to leave out Contreras?

Yeah, figured he's up for good and wanted to see Jimenez at number 1. But I'll put Contreras in at number 1 if we're still ranking him.

Yeah, we'll rank him until he's not eligible.

Done

[Tim]

Yeah, figured he's up for good and wanted to see Jimenez at number 1. But I'll put Contreras in at number 1 if we're still ranking him.

Yeah, we'll rank him until he's not eligible.

Done

How are you getting multiple entries for each guy?

[Thrilho]

btw - the really fun part to me about doing it this way is when I start to get trend charts up to see guys like Albertos shooting up the rankings with each start (hopefully).

Totally. I work in analytics and really dig that kind of stuff. It'll be real cool to see exactly how public perception of a guy changes. The recent articles around here have been top quality, and I'm guessing the analytics that come from this ranking tool will be a great addition to the nsbb content machine.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Thrilho

[Thrilho]

Yeah, we'll rank him until he's not eligible.

Done

How are you getting multiple entries for each guy?

I saved once without Contreras in there, once with him in there, then did again with the "Overwrite Today's Previous Entry" button. Is it creating multiple entries?

[Tim]

Done

How are you getting multiple entries for each guy?

I saved once without Contreras in there, once with him in there, then did again with the "Overwrite Today's Previous Entry" button. Is it creating multiple entries?

It shouldn't be - I thought I had any bugs worked out of there. But I'll run through it some more tomorrow.

[Tim]

btw - the really fun part to me about doing it this way is when I start to get trend charts up to see guys like Albertos shooting up the rankings with each start (hopefully).

Totally. I work in analytics and really dig that kind of stuff. It'll be real cool to see exactly how public perception of a guy changes. The recent articles around here have been top quality, and I'm guessing the analytics that come from this ranking tool will be a great addition to the nsbb content machine.

This is my first real project in javascript - I can't wait to dive into D3 and start using some of the chart types they have in there.

[Thrilho]

I figured he'd be a center fielder, but he's only got 8 CF starts in 63 games to go with his .236/.359/.359 line and 21.5% K rate. And it's not like Dewees is an uber prospect where you couldn't do more of a time split. It probably would've been more prudent to leave him out of the top 10, but right now I don't feel too bad about a big drop for him. One thing about these rankings is that this is what I feel about the guy now. If new information comes out that makes me change my mind I will, but right now there's not much outside the $3M signing bonus to say EJM should be in the top 20.

 

Still seems like too much reacting to too little info here, just in a different direction:

 

- Just because he hasn't played much CF often doesn't mean they think he's not a CF or not capable. This is the same org that popped Heyward for $180+ million with every confidence he can play CF if put into position to do so. There's at least a decent shot Dewees is not even in the org after July, certainly he's more likely to be traded than Martinez. There's a gamesmanship involved with that situation. There is just more to be gained for the 2016 Cubs org by having Dewees play more CF.

 

- His K rate by month has been 25%, 22%, and now 17.6% in June (85 PAs). His aggragate K rate is league a erage rather than below, so it's not a damning number either. Further, plate discipline was his strength as a Cuban player - he drew 17 BBS to 19 Ks as a 18-19 YO over 144 PAs in their pro leagues.

 

I'm not huge on Martinez, but he's pretty easily a top 20 prospect org right now and probably closer to 10 than 20. A massive drop today doesn't seem any less reactionary than the very high initial ranking.

Yeah, I don't see much in your argument there for him being a layup top 20 guy. Look at Dewees' numbers, defensive profile, and draft position and tell me why EJM should be ranked higher than him right now. I'm being reactionary on EJM right now because his numbers have been pretty bad and there weren't a whole lot of ranking sites that were willing to take the plunge on him prior to the season. So it's not like we've got a situation where there was some consensus on great tools prior to the season and he's underperforming. You've got the big bonus, but other than that I haven't seen a lot to like.

 

But I'm pretty soft on a lot of the guys I have from 17-22, so maybe EJM could move up. For me, you have to do an awful lot with the bat as a corner outfielder. Maybe he hits better or starts playing center, but until then I'm fine with where I've got him.

[Thrilho]

Also, headed to bed. EJM, like many of the guys, I don't have a real strong feel for yet so I'm probably not going to argue a lot on him. I just wanted to use him as an example how reactionary I am with my rankings. Recent data is big for me, and I don't mind looking like a fool. For instance, I blasted Happ pretty hard to start the season and pushed Almora. Right now I like Happ more. I'm sure I look like a dumb flip flopper, but oh well. Now we can use Tim's ranking tool to quantify and mock my flip floppery in a more effective manner.

[craig]

Of course, my methods of ranking guys about whom I have little information doesn't always work great. EJM is dropping like 15 spots from his 8th place ranking in my beginning of season ranking.

 

15? This seems as reactionary as 8 in the preseason. Its not like theres been tons more info, its been a little over half a minor league season.

 

There has been a fair bit of observational stuff about Martinez that was not available during the winter, when we had a little of Badler and a little of Keith Law, the latter suggesting he might conceivably approach 1.1 in draft.

 

But now, three months in, we see that his speed tool is unexceptional; his arm is good not great; he doesn't have a great power tool by either results or scouting observation (bp observation as well as game stats); his corner defense is good but he's not a great defensive CF; and he's not a great contact hitter. (Again, observational reports as well as actual low batting average speak to this. Nobody is saying what a beautiful swing he has, or what remarkable bat speed he has; or what a special sound there is when his bat hits the ball.)

 

Overall, the scouting stuff, as well as the actual results and usage thus far, sound pretty JAG. No hint of high first-round talent like Law had been considering.

 

Seems totally JAG thus far.

[craig]

No update yet on the Jiminez getting pulled early?

[Tim]

JAG?

 

Oh - just a guy

[Tim]

No update yet on the Jiminez getting pulled early?

None that I've heard yet.

[ctcf]

Nice to see Jake Stinnett have a strong night. 8 IP, 4 H, 1 R, 0 ER, 1 BB, 5 K, 10-4 GO/FO. 22/4 SO/BB in 25.2 IP in June.

[Thrilho]

Yeah, I don't see much in your argument there for him being a great prospect.

 

Who said anything about Martinez being a great prospect? That's not even kinda sorta the case being made. On the other hand, he is a first year IFA pro who has clearly improved as the season has gone on - particularly with his plate discipline. What I actually was saying is that he's easily a top 20 system prospect and you're overreacting to marginally more info than you had when you put him 8 to start. Further, that 8th spot was likely a ranking based largely on what sites like BP and MLB.com wrote about him (and his tools) when signed.

 

Note: I did not have him in my top 10 before the season - IIRC he was either 12 or 13 for me. If he progresses during the summer like he has in the months leading into it, he should pretty handily make my 2017 preseason top 10. I'd like to see more power, and/or a higher BABIP during the hot months while keeping the Ks in check.

You seem to think that me moving him back is really wrong, but then don't want to make a big statement in his favor. If you don't want to say he's top 10 then why is it so ludicrous that I'd have him just out of the top 20? You're spraying around the reactionary thing like it's a really bad thing. Sure, if a guy has a long track record of one level of performance then a small sample size of a different level, and you make a big deal of it then yeah I can see that as reactionary. But when a guy has zero track record then you react to the results you're given.

 

But there are plenty of good reasons to be reactionary even with a small sample size. If you'd be a little more reactionary with your evaluation of Contreras' AA year last year you might have had him higher than #4. If a guy is crushing it to a certain level then I throw out some of the previous performance, particularly if the peripherals match. Hanneman, for instance, has one half season of pretty good performance. It's probably quite reactionary to put him at #13, but I feel pretty good about it. I like to try and be out front on guys I like. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't, but to me it doesn't make sense to move glacially on your views when a guy is vastly outperforming or underperforming his your opinion of him.

 

And +1 on everything Craig said about EJM.

[Tim]

The biggest difference between the approaches being discussed is how much weight is given to recent performance vs previous information. There aren't really any right or wrong answers.

[Thrilho]

The biggest difference between the approaches being discussed is how much weight is given to recent performance vs previous information. There aren't really any right or wrong answers.

Agreed. Sometimes it works out, like weighting Contreras' AA performance more heavily and sometimes it doesn't like when I rated Blackburn over Hendricks a couple years ago due to Blackburn's huge strikeout playoff games. If you like waiting a little longer you're probably going to be behind the curve on some guys but look dumb a little less jumping the gun on others.

[Thrilho]

You seem to think that me moving him back is really wrong, but then don't want to make a big statement in his favor. If you don't want to say he's top 10 then why is it so ludicrous that I'd have him just out of the top 20? You're spraying around the reactionary thing like it's a really bad thing. Sure, if a guy has a long track record of one level of performance then a small sample size of a different level, and you make a big deal of it then yeah I can see that as reactionary. But when a guy has zero track record then you react to the results you're given.

 

But there are plenty of good reasons to be reactionary even with a small sample size. If you'd be a little more reactionary with your evaluation of Contreras' AA year last year you might have had him higher than #4. If a guy is crushing it to a certain level then I throw out some of the previous performance, particularly if the peripherals match. Hanneman, for instance, has one half season of pretty good performance. It's probably quite reactionary to put him at #13, but I feel pretty good about it. I like to try and be out front on guys I like. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't, but to me it doesn't make sense to move glacially on your views when a guy is vastly outperforming or underperforming his your opinion of him.

 

And +1 on everything Craig said about EJM.

 

I'd say that he's easily a top 20 prospect in this system and closer to 10 than 20 is a big statement when the other end is that he's not top 20. I'd say that you're overreacting to minute information is a big statement in the context of this discussion. I'd say that he's improved his plate discipline month by month, significantly, is a big statement (and also the implication that you're ignoring that real, quantifiable information is a big statement now that it's been made).

 

It is most definitely a bad idea to be reactionary - case in point being throwing Martinez being 8 for you coming in with minimal info and now all the way outside of the top 20 with barely any new info. There's way more mistakes to be made just reacting to the latest direction of the wind than not - reacting is something this FO has even stated they just do not do. While Contreras and Hannemann (a player I liked before improving) have nothing to do with Martinez - ranking Contreras 4th, based on the defense behind the plate still questioned by most non Cubs fans or fans in general, is not anywhere near as dramatic as going 8th to outside the 20 based on minimal PAs - trending up at that - in a debut season (an IFA's debut season at that).

 

As far as what craig said - +1'd I assume for a little antagonistic flare - we don't even have any new high quality info on tools from even one major guy! It's literally stuff being pulled out of thin air. None of the major guys have said anything or said anything they weren't saying before you ranked him 8th. First round talents, even high ones, have had mediocre starts to their careers before - there's nothing of substance in there to be perfectly honest.

 

The biggest difference between the approaches being discussed is how much weight is given to recent performance vs previous information. There aren't really any right or wrong answers.

 

I've actually come from both the angle of previous information as well as recent performance. Martinez's plate discipline and offensive performance has legitimately improved as the season has progressed. The guy's basically a college aged kid from another country that got immediately thrown into full season ball, and he's objectively gotten better at the plate as the year has moved on.

you say "reacting is something this FO has even stated they just do not do", but you've got no idea how they internally evaluate. You react to information and re-evaluate guys. How much they swing based on recent performance is the thing, but you're always going to react. You don't trade a guy for a bad month, but a good month early in a guy's career can change your thinking.

 

I say be a little more reactionary. Your views on Contreras is a good example where to me he's clearly a man-beast who crushed AA last year with a steel fist, and in my world he'd have to be a butcher at catcher to not be ranked ahead of Torres. You didn't buy in that hard. I'd be curious where you had him before the call up when we still didn't have a ton of clarity on his defensive prowess. I was saying and still am that short of Trout I'm not really interested in trading him. All because I buy hard into a year and a half of recent hitting data.

 

Edwards has walked 6+ guys per 9 for a couple years now, but it's still not enough data for you to call it the new world. For me, half a season of EJM playing well below the expectations I'd have for him at that age/level is enough for me to move significantly. Yeah, my preseason ranking was aggressive, but many people were flat unwilling to rank him. I ranked him on the tools I'd read about and ranked him highly because there wasn't anyone I felt that strongly about after the first 7. I'm still kind of there, because I feel like I can move in potential flash in the pans like Rice and Albertos. That's my prerogative and I'm down to take flack for it. But I was also one of the few who ranked Schwarber ahead of Soler when we only had a couple months of Schwarbs raking at the low levels. I'm pretty happy I was on the Schwarber train early. I'll flag my flag high if Ian Rice is awesome and get buried in shame if he's washed away in the tide of JAGs the second half of this year. I'm down with either way, but for right now EJM's recent k rate improvement and his walks aren't enough for me.

[Thrilho]

Also, the fact that nobody has written a word about EJM since the start of the season isn't a good thing. I agreed with what Craig said because although I haven't read anything on his range or arm lately the absence of rave reviews or him ever playing center is enough for me to guess he's probably not doing much defensively to garner said rave reviews.

[davell]

There are enough high profile prospect writers out there that EJM would have some coverage, if anyone out there thought the tools were there. They're getting PLENTY of looks, because Jimenez is getting plenty of write-ups.

 

The reviews were mixed heading into the year on EJM- I bought into Law and Kiley over Badler personally. But Law even backed off prior to the season, saying he needed to see him produce in games.

 

I take the fact NO ONE is talking about him AND the fact that outside of increasing his walk rate(which has tailed off recently BTW), basically means he's just a guy who was overrated to begin with. When people get on or leave a prospects train is never going to be universal.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

you say "reacting is something this FO has even stated they just do not do", but you've got no idea how they internally evaluate. You react to information and re-evaluate guys. How much they swing based on recent performance is the thing, but you're always going to react. You don't trade a guy for a bad month, but a good month early in a guy's career can change your thinking.

 

I say be a little more reactionary. Your views on Contreras is a good example where to me he's clearly a man-beast who crushed AA last year with a steel fist, and in my world he'd have to be a butcher at catcher to not be ranked ahead of Torres. You didn't buy in that hard. I'd be curious where you had him before the call up when we still didn't have a ton of clarity on his defensive prowess. I was saying and still am that short of Trout I'm not really interested in trading him. All because I buy hard into a year and a half of recent hitting data.

 

Edwards has walked 6+ guys per 9 for a couple years now, but it's still not enough data for you to call it the new world. For me, half a season of EJM playing well below the expectations I'd have for him at that age/level is enough for me to move significantly. Yeah, my preseason ranking was aggressive, but many people were flat unwilling to rank him. I ranked him on the tools I'd read about and ranked him highly because there wasn't anyone I felt that strongly about after the first 7. I'm still kind of there, because I feel like I can move in potential flash in the pans like Rice and Albertos. That's my prerogative and I'm down to take flack for it. But I was also one of the few who ranked Schwarber ahead of Soler when we only had a couple months of Schwarbs raking at the low levels. I'm pretty happy I was on the Schwarber train early. I'll flag my flag high if Ian Rice is awesome and get buried in shame if he's washed away in the tide of JAGs the second half of this year. I'm down with either way, but for right now EJM's recent k rate improvement and his walks aren't enough for me.

 

- I may not know exactly how they evaluate, but beyond this not being rocket science Epstein has stated many times over the course of the rebuild about how their game is not to react dramatically. He's talked about in terms of the rebuild, in terms of adding at the deadline this year and last, it plays out in the way the rebuild went down.

 

- My view on Contreras was that he would hit, is high energy and athletic, but his defense behind the plate lags. That's in line with almost literally anyone that matters in the prospect game. He also has *nothing* to do with Martinez. A full AA season, a year and a half between AA and AAA at 23 and 24, is different from 3 months of A ball during a debut season. I'd be curious as to what your thoughts were on Contreras in A ball - I tagged him as an offensive sleeper on PSD to criticism then too (pissing contest over irrelevant topics in this discussion!). 1 and 4 in the org is a different from 8 and below 20 in the org, one a little more dramatic than the other. Throw in that my knocks were the consensus knocks and I don't get why you keep going back to Contreras as some kind of evidence of anything. Like Contreras and Hannemann before him, Edwards has nothing at all to do with Martinez. What you call 2 years, I call ~83 innings in a completely different and new role spread over 2 years without any real decline in overall dominance - tomato/tomahto, I guess. Torres remains an excellent prospect worthy of being marked a system's top guy.

 

- Who are these many people unwilling to rank Martinez? BP and Keith Law had him top 7 or 8 in the system. BA made him a top 100 prospect right off the bat among all the prospects in all the systems.

 

Also, the fact that nobody has written a word about EJM since the start of the season isn't a good thing. I agreed with what Craig said because although I haven't read anything on his range or arm lately the absence of rave reviews or him ever playing center is enough for me to guess he's probably not doing much defensively to garner said rave reviews.

 

It's not a career killer either. They write about the loud performances. Right now Martinez's performane doesn't really call for nationally published words or major reactions. You assume/extrapolate too much out of thin air. That your whole opinion of his defense is based of words that haven't been written, easily explainable positioning, and what you interpret that to mean should be a hint that you are being rash.

 

Anyway, it is your perogative and opinions are sacred yada yada yada...In the end, I think there's minimal rationale behind dropping Martinez out of the top 20 and *that's* what I'm saying. Nothing about him being a great prospect, nothing about him being or not being a JAG in the long run - just that overreacting in one direction doesn't equal out overreacting in the other direction beforehand. Really takes the fun out of a decent baseball debate when it boils down to "well that's just like, my opinion man" in the end, but realistically it is the most sensible ending. Good talk!

 

Martinez didn't make BA's top 100. They actually ranked him 28th in the system last offseason.

 

Additionally, Ben Badler recently said in a chat the Giants had to be pleased to not sign him (don't remember the exact phrasing, but clearly he still isn't a fan).

[Thrilho]

Anyway, it is your perogative and opinions are sacred yada yada yada...In the end, I think there's minimal rationale behind dropping Martinez out of the top 20 and *that's* what I'm saying. Nothing about him being a great prospect, nothing about him being or not being a JAG in the long run - just that overreacting in one direction doesn't equal out overreacting in the other direction beforehand. Really takes the fun out of a decent baseball debate when it boils down to "well that's just like, my opinion man" in the end, but realistically it is the most sensible ending. Good talk!

 

Got it. The whole "that's my opinion" thing is a good one to keep in mind. Your hard stance that such and such is an overreaction is just that. A debate on prospects is an easier one than a debate on evaluation methodology. If we were just discussing EJM we could bring scouting reports and numbers to the table. But when you say "a half season's worth of stats aren't enough to make an evaluation" then it becomes a different discussion where our evaluation methodologies differ. You feel strongly that my methodology is wrong, so I get to question yours. That's how I brought Contreras and Edwards in.

 

I'm of the belief that a half season isn't too little to make a big difference in an evaluation. You disagree (at least in the case of EJM). So it's fair to wonder how well our methodologies have worked for us in the past. I called out some of my mistakes, I brought up some things that I think you've missed the boat on. We'll see where a guy like Contreras ends up and whether it made sense in this offseason, where he had one full season of mashing AA, to rank him as the 4th best prospect in the system. Maybe there are other factors involved, but buying heavy into what some would consider small sample size is how I came to the conclusion that he was far and away the best prospect in the system. Candelario's one year at AA, Almora's second half at AA, I took these things and ran with them because I saw a trend that went counter to their career production, even though most prospect guys ranked them much lower due to the small sample size.

 

As Tim said, I don't think there's a right way, but this is my way. I recognize some short comings, but that's how I came up with my EJM swing and it's how I'll continue to shift guys around like rag dolls as their performance numbers come in. Using Tim's new tool we'll be able to see exactly how quickly people shift their opinions in the face of new data. It'll be super fun.