BA Top 10 A's Prospects
by faninphilly on Dec 3, 2008 10:17 AM PST
Email
Print
Baseball America just released their top 10 A's prospects: Link
1. Brett Anderson, lhp 2. Trevor Cahill, rhp 3. Michael Inoa, rhp 4. Aaron Cunningham, of 5. Adrian Cardenas, 2b/ss 6. Chris Carter, 1b/3b/of 7. Gio Gonzalez, lhp 8. Vin Mazzaro, rhp 9. Jemile Weeks, 2b 10. James Simmons, rhp
There are some interesting differences compared to our community list, notably Inoa at #3, Anderson over Cahill and Mazzaro over Simmons. Discuss!
173 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Angel's list is posted too
1. Nick Adenhart, rhp
2. Jordan Walden, rhp
3. Peter Bourjos, of
4. Trevor Reckling, lhp
5. Sean O’Sullivan, rhp
6. Kevin Jepsen, rhp
7. Hank Conger, c
8. Mark Trumbo, 1b
9. Anthony Ortega, rhp
10. Mason Tobin, rhp
Pretty underwhelming indeed.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
BA really likes Weeks
And Cardenas over Carter is interesting as well. I don’t necessarily disagree or agree, I just find it muy interesante…
"Their batters are patient to the point that it's annoying." -Ryan Franklin
LOL @ Inoa at #3
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Apparently BA doesn't believe that TINSTAAPP
Since they’re calling a 7 year old or whateve Inoa is the third best prospect in the system. I can’t even imagine trying to justify that.
by thejd44 on Dec 3, 2008 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
That's because TISTAAPP
Or who won slots #1 and #2 in AN’s poll?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
True, if TINSTAAP, we'd have a Top 4
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 9:43 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but there's a difference between two guys who are knocking on the doorstep of the majors being prospects
And somebody who hasn’t pitched anywhere important ever being one.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 12:48 AM PST up reply actions
Eh, it's to be expected
BA favors hype, tools, and projectibility to the point where they’ll rank a 16 year old over guys who have actually, well, produced.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
Cunningham is undoubtedly a better prospect than Inoa.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
"Undoubtedly" is a strong word in conjunction with a guy no one has seen play professionally.
Doubt is one of Inoa’s biggest value boosters at this point.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 11:17 AM PST up reply actions
That's exactly why Cunningham is a better prospect
A guy who literally has done NOTHING can’t possibly be better.
by thejd44 on Dec 3, 2008 6:46 PM PST up reply actions
How can you literally do nothing,
when nothing is a concept – or at best, is the absence of something? These things trouble me greatly and keep me up at night. As does the constant baaaaaa-ing.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I can suggest a way to stop the bleating
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
Anyone can do nothing alone but try to do nothing with someone
"Whether you think you can, or you think you can't, either way, YOU'RE RIGHT !"
Don't agree with that logic
That means that immediately following the draft, Jemile Weeks would’ve been ranked below {insert most useless player in system that was in system in 2007 here}.
"A’s baseball….It’s almost better than a stick in the eye." ~ alox
by Gallagher's Watermelons on Dec 3, 2008 6:50 PM PST up reply actions
Jemile Weeks had college performance
And while that’s not a perfect way to judge a player, it’s a helluva lot more effective than…whatever Inoa has done. I think the two Indian pitchers the Pirates just signed might actually have more of a track record (not the talent) than Inoa.
I’m not saying Inoa is bad by any means, but in terms of actual experience he doesn’t have much, if any.
by thejd44 on Dec 3, 2008 7:02 PM PST up reply actions
Indian Pitchers are a joke
They finished 1st and 2nd in a contest in India to see who could throw the hardest in the country. Pretty serious track record
by CallMeDragon on Dec 3, 2008 11:42 PM PST up reply actions
They at least pitched some college games since they came over
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
My credentials as an MLB player have been thoroughly proven ...
you know exactly how good I’m going to be once I get the call … am I a better prospect than Inoa?
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Nah, but I think it's pretty ridiculous to compare one of us to Aaron Cunningham
Since what I said was, basically, that a guy who has done nothing can’t be a better prospect than a guy who has played in the majors. I think that’s pretty significant.
Forgive me for favoring actual performance over athletic ability.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 12:51 AM PST up reply actions
The point here is BA is ranking a kid #3 in the A's system sight unseen
I could see that if we were talking about an organization with next to no minor league system whatsoever.
That’s not the A’s. They actually have a lot of solid prospects.
Inoa may very well end up being the best of all the A’s prospects in years. Rank him there when he’s done something. Not now. Not yet.
For all we know, he could flame out in A-ball. Unlikely, but possible.
Last of the Ninth - Photography Site / jamesvenes.com - Blog
On a scale of 1-10
Performance: 0
Physical Tools: 14
Overall Rating: 7
I’m not saying Inoa is a better prospect than Cunningham — I’ve posted my list of the top 16 — Cunningham is above Inoa — but it’s silly to say that he’s not up there …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I'd say performance should be weighted more heavily than "physical tools"
At least by a 2 to 1 margin.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 12:13 PM PST up reply actions
I'd say you're wrong ...
but that’s neither here nor there …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Well, sure it is
That’s the entire point of the discussion. I just don’t see how performance and tools can be treated as equals. If the difference isn’t 2:1, it’s still greater than 1:1.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
Great performance + zero physical tools = non prospect
Poor performance + great physical tools = prospect
Physical tools are absolutely essential, minor league performance isn’t.
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Inoa is not sight unseen
He hasn’t played in pro games, but at least a dozen scouts have seen him throw.
The monster at the end of this blog.
Right, so he throws hard. And he's big. And he's 16.
He could be the type of guy who forgets how to throw a strike (if he can even throw one now) after giving up his first pro home run.
Every (or at least the good) list that rates prospects “penalizes” for lack of data. Untested physical tools only take a guy so far, and as of now, that doesn’t get Inoa far enough because the A’s system is so good. Sickels routinely gives a guy a C and says that could go up once the guy spends some time in pro ball.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 12:16 PM PST up reply actions
Inoa throws strikes
He’s also athletic and repeats his delivery well, which is a good indicator of him being able to continue to throw strikes. BA probably rates Inoa’s stuff as better than either Anderson or Cahill, so the performance of those two are what helps them rate higher than Inoa in the list.
Hey, I don’t agree with him at #3 either. Just saying he’s not a guy that there isn’t information on. Mark 1 Eyeball scouting is an extremely valuable source of information. Inoa has been seen by a bunch of scouts and you can’t find one bad report on the guy.
The monster at the end of this blog.
I believe he can throw
Have scouts seen him in real games against even halfway decent competition? When you say there are scouting reports on him, is this kinda like when Yi Jianlian was working out by posting up a chair?
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 8:16 PM PST up reply actions
I bet that was no ordinary chair.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
Not a really directly comparable
The difference between making a basket from 7 feet all alone, and doing with an NBA player guarding you is huge. The difference between throwing a 95 mph fastball right where the catcher wants it without a batter in the box, and doing it with one there isn’t nearly as big.
I mean, I’d still like to see him pitch some pro innings before ranking him that high, but pitching is one thing that is fairly predictable from watching practice.
Okay, let's just make up some numbers.
What is the chance that Cunningham is a replacement player? Star? Off the top of my head, I’d go with something like:
0 WAR: 5%
1 WAR: 15%
2 WAR: 30%
3 WAR: 30%
4 WAR: 15%
5 WAR: 5%
So we’re fairly sure that Cunningham can be an average player, somewhere between 2-3 WAR, with a small chance of busting into stardom and an equally small chance of just plain busting. Weighted average: 2.5 WAR (basically, an average player).
Inoa – we know that he might be very good, but he might get injured, never develop, actually turn out to be a 35-year old Swede, whatever. So lets say that if he makes the majors, he’ll likely be a star, but that we don’t know if he’ll get there.
0 WAR: 35%
1 WAR: 20%
2 WAR: 10%
3 WAR: 10%
4 WAR: 10%
5 WAR: 25%
Weighted average: 2.35, about the same as Cunningham. So even the doubt that is his value booster – and I’m giving him a 35% chance of being a star – doesn’t make him more valuable than Cunningham.
Now, these numbers are for illustrative purposes only, but I’m just trying to point out that while doubt is a driver of value, you have to be pretty sanguine on his chances of making it in order for that doubt to make you think he’s better than a major-league ready position prospect.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
And, I think the important thing here
is that most 16 year olds don’t make the majors. In fact, I would bet against a 16-year-old making the majors every single time, and I’d make lots of money doing that.
by thejd44 on Dec 3, 2008 7:52 PM PST up reply actions
I wonder
Top 50 All-Time Bonus Babies, How many have made the Major Leagues? I’d say over 50% have made the Majors, or will make the Majors.
by Colorado Fan on Dec 3, 2008 11:13 PM PST up reply actions
I think a better question is,
“How many major leaguers were once 16?”
100%!
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Or in some cases twice.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2008 8:56 PM PST up reply actions
You would think this sort of calculation was an obvious thing to do
but apparently it’s just never occurred to anyone at BA to even consider thinking this way.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
except that each marginal win is worth more than the last ...
Based on those numbers, I’d think the hypothetical Inoa would actually probably be slightly more valuable …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
?
$/MW is linear, no?
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
No ... it shouldn't be ...
you do and should pay a premium for high end players, because they are extremely limited in supply and lacking them severely limits how good your team can be …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
But...it is linear...
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
Discussion
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
This discussion is awesome in that I don't understand it, but intuitively
I’m thinking that you can only play 9 players at a time and have 25 players on your active roster at a time. Having 400 2 WAR players isn’t as good as having 25 3 WAR players is it?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 9:50 PM PST up reply actions
Theory goes, you can trade the 2 WAR guys to get some 4 WAR guys and end up ahead
In practice, it’s not clear that this is true. I can’t recall ever seeing a true “quantity for quality” trade of that sort, where all or most of the players were established MLB regulars with reasonably reliable true talent estimates.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
doesn't stop me getting 500 of these trade offers every fantasy season
The problem is, there’s always some sucker who takes one of them every year, encouraging people to throw out 10 billion quantity-for-quality dreck offers.
I'm not talking about fantasy baseball...
In fact, other than mocking it, I don’t think I’ve ever said ANYTHING about fantasy baseball.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I got that part
Just trying to lighten the mood. I’ll avoid that impulse next time.
by jdr on Dec 4, 2008 5:29 PM PST up reply actions
that is literally the reason
(that value isn’t linear). Roster/playing time scarcity. If you could play all 400 of of your 2 WAR players value would be linear, or maybe even inverse at the extremes (why pay extra for a 5 WAR guy if you can just throw in a few more cheap 2 WAR guys?). But with only 9 guys on the field it’s a logarithmic scale.
I'm with devo et al. on this one
It seems pretty clear to me that a 5 WAR player is significantly more than 5 times as valuable as a 1 WAR player.
Roster spots and playing time are limited, and if you have, say a 5 WAR player and a replacement level player in your lineup, then it’s significantly easier to upgrade than if you have two 2.5 WAR players.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
Hm.
I understand why that must be true, but I haven’t seen any hard data showing that teams do in fact pay a superstar premium. I can actually see the opposite being true – a 5 win-player may not get his 25 MM because of the risk tied to such a large amount of money – although, again, no data.
PT’s point below is interesting, and I suppose it’s possible that there is a significant non-linearity in the 0-1.5 WAR region.
Calls for a study.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
An important issue, though ...
is years, in addition to dollars. I think superstar players probably are generally theoretically underpaid (and advocated signing A-Rod because of it) on a annual salary basis, because the team is absorbing a significant risk in terms of the years on the contract …
How to balance the two … hmm …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Maybe the difference isn't that great ...
the similarity of the columns in his chart were very interesting …
And if it’s really that close, maybe for most teams, there really isn’t a premium value to premium players …
I’m amenable to the idea that Tango seemed to be advancing, that the difference is fairly irrelevant — but the concept just doesn’t stand to reason — if something of extreme value has a very limited supply, it will require a premium price. A team simply cannot be that good without premium players. A 90 win team, paying market would cost something like $140m. Premium players allow a team to be just as good with more cost efficient players at other positions …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
But the cost-efficiency is often due to pre-FA contracts
Or, better yet, a pre-FA premium player.
One way to study this would be to take the net value of a player (WAR*$/win – salary), restricting the pool only to FA players, and see if high WAR players have a negative net value (implies superstar premium) or low WAR players have a positive net value (implies scrub discount).
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
Sounds like a good Staturday piece, so...
uh… um… I got finals until the 16th.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
would be a good Staturday piece.
this is a fascinating subject. I think a topic similar to this is what led me to join AN
Save Rajai Davis
Also, a methodological point
I think one might be better off measuring the cost-efficiency of low-SALARIED players and high-salaried players rather than of low-WAR players and high-WAR players. Low-WAR players are disproportionately hired by idiots, and idiots disproportionately overpay for talent.
To put that another way, Barry Zito is a “star” who sucks, not a 5th starter who’s overpaid.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I don't suppose you have the data in spreadsheet form ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I think we're overlooking something important here
Most teams don’t truly understand player value. That’s not to say nobody knows who is a good player. Even non-sabermetrically-inclined teams will, generally, be able to pick better players if given a choice. But what very few teams seem to grasp right now is how player ability and money and the overall market really work. That’s why Jose Guillen gets more than $10+ mil and Mark Ellis gets less than half that.
I guess what I’m saying is that if your theory holds (premium players get more than they deserve, easily replaceable, but still decent players get less), free agents shouldn’t ever be over or underpaid.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 12:57 AM PST up reply actions
Well, you can't account for stupid ...
I don’t see what that has to do with it …
I’m saying this is the manner in which teams do and should attempt to act … I’m not saying that Brian Sabean has any capability of actually doing it …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I'm saying your model might be the theoretical ideal that isn't actually accomplished
Because Brian Sabean isn’t the only dumb GM out there. The stupid GMs mess up what should be a pretty simple system. I think the logical argument you make just might not apply because stupidity seems to operate outside the realm of logic.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 12:18 PM PST up reply actions
So, what you're saying is that salaries are essentially random?
Could be true…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I would guess
That the vast majority of the “inefficiency” in the system is inflicted by the rules, such as pre-arb etc. I can’t remember when/where this is coming from, but I seem to recall hearing something at some point that the free-agent market taken as a whole is generally efficient, naturally with outliers (although those outliers of course are often not who one would think). That might all be hogwash, though. Either way it was a while ago when I saw it and I think it was particularly in regard to ARod’s Texas contract. Giant grain of salt though b/c I can’t remember any kind of reference.
by jdr on Dec 4, 2008 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
Simple?
You predicted that Travis Buck would get injured and suck badly? Or that Daric Barton would suck, and jump into a pool while drunk? Or that Bobby Crosby would get injured in all manners of painful ways?
Or that a healthy Jermaine Dye would blossom into the player the A’s thought they were signing? Or that Raul Ibanez maybe because of his dedication to improving himself, has been a better player at ages 34-36 than what should have been his prime during his late 20s and early 30s? Or that Julio Franco, maybe due to his commitment to fitness, would be able to play in MLB into his 40s?
Logic works, if your initial premises are not false. If your initial premises are false, the most perfect logic in the world is worthless.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
No, logic works the other direction.
You start with a conclusion that you know must be true, and then you infer from that the facts necessary to support the conclusion.
For example: (a) I know everything. (b) Any GM has access to as much information as I do. (c) So Bill Bavasi Brian Sabean must be a moron.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Is it?
1 WAR backups (Branyan, eg) routinely get paid less than $5 million. Why? Because they’re easily replaceable.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
But then there's Dary Matthews Jr.
Who gets paid $10 million to be replacement level.
Intuitively, it seems to me like there is an overall linear trend with a larger variance at the bottom end an insufficient data at the top to draw any firm conclusion.
and yet
Rashun Dixon is still nowhere to be seen in their top 10. Which says something.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
Neither are guys like Rosario and Hunter
Point is in general, BA emphasizes tools beyond reason. Of course, if their lists comprised entirely of raw, toolsy prospects, then they’d be plain asinine.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Dec 3, 2008 11:54 AM PST up reply actions
I agree
I just think it’s funny that in other diaries people have been insisting that Dixon belongs as high as #5 based on his tools, while even the “tools beyond reason” BA doesn’t have him in their top 10.
Thanks for tomorrow 'cause I've had enough
Well
I don’t know about #5, but I started voted for Dixon at #9, although now I probably think I would have started at 10, and if BA thinks he’s more 11-12, that would also be entirely reasonable.
RagingHarden: Yeah if you get 20 starts out of me I'll be shocked. Like, I'll wreck my drawers.
by walk off bunt on Dec 3, 2008 2:24 PM PST up reply actions
Badler said Doolittle's 11 right now
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 4:40 PM PST up reply actions
Badler thinks Hunter's mechanics are an injury risk and so he's a likely reliever and that
Rosario isn’t likely to make the Top 30 since the system is so deep.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 4:31 PM PST up reply actions
We've yet to see where Goldstein and Sickels rank Inoa. I bet they rank him somewhere over
guys who have actually produced. Maybe not #3….but then again maybe.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
Well at some point you'd have to rank him over guys who's already played
Ranking him over Cunningham and Carter though? I’d disagree vehemently.
"We were s--, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on Dec 3, 2008 11:43 AM PST up reply actions
BA's rankings can pretty much be ignored
They’re interesting data points, but it’s still 1998 in their world. Raw tools are hugely rated over performance, which was quaint back then but just seems silly these days.
although it's refreshing
To see dreck like Herrera, Robnett, Mitchell, etc. off the list this year and have some players who might actually do something someday on there instead.
It wasn't BA's fault
that the A’s didn’t have any better prospects than those guys. And Herrera wasn’t just a tools goof—he was pretty awesome in Vancouver.
well of course
I’m not blaming BA for five years of crappy A’s drafts. I’m just happy that those guys are no longer our “top” prospects. Last year’s list was painful.
by jdr on Dec 3, 2008 4:24 PM PST up reply actions
Is there any evidence
that the rankings of Nate Silver / Pecota, Sickels, Goldstein are any better than BAs?
If not, should we basically ignore all of them?
Silver / PECOTA and Sickels tend to be more performance based, Goldstein and BA more scouting based.
ZIPS: Milledge: 466 HR, 485 2B, 2282 hits, 278-379-524
No evidence at all
That’s why I listen to ’em all (well, not PECOTA so much) and conclude from there.
The monster at the end of this blog.
If you ignore Silver then you're just left with the scouting guys and Sickels
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 5, 2008 7:50 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe I wasn't clear
I read what Silver has to say, I tend to ignore PECOTA projections for rookies
The monster at the end of this blog.
biggest surprise
Cunningham at #4. 1 and 2 went about where it should. Hard to say about Iona since he is only 16. I am not sold on Carter so #6 is still high to me. Just think Donaldson and Brown didn’t even make it.
biggest surprise?
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
I must say
I think BA’s ranking of Doolittle is closer to the mark than AN’s.
The A's colors are green and gold.
I can see it both ways
his AZFL stats help his case, a lot. His power performance in particular helps assuage doubts about his time in AA.
Also, he has much more value as a 1B/OF than just as a 1B, and it sure sounds like he will be able to play OF just fine.
But still, I don’t have a problem ranking him anywhere from 6-14
After about Carter ...
the next ten or so are pretty comparable …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
I disagree
I think Doolittle is ahead of Carter at this point.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Okay ...
so Anderson and Cahill are clearly well above the others … somewhere in the A/A- range …
Cunningham I’d put in the A-/B+ range
Cardenas and Carter I’d put as B/B+
And a solid B goes to:
Gio
Doolittle
Simmons
Mazzaro
Donaldson
Inoa
Weeks
Rodriguez
De Los Santos
Leon
Brown
As you can see, I don’t put Carter or Cardenas far ahead of the rest, so I wouldn’t really argue with for any particular order for the next dozen, after Anderson/Cahill at 1 and 1a (or 1a and 1) and Cunningham at 3 (or is it 2 … I can never figure out how that should work …) …
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Cogent argument ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
A grades only go to guys who legitimately have a chance to be stars
Cunningham will be solid but I don’t think anyone’s projecting him to be an all-star at any point. At least in the Sickels system, the difference between a B+ and an A- is huge.
by jdr on Dec 3, 2008 4:26 PM PST up reply actions
I think Cunningham can be an All Star a couple times
But I still wouldn’t give him higher than B+
by thejd44 on Dec 3, 2008 6:48 PM PST up reply actions
I'd grade Cahill and Anderson as A-, Cunningham and Doolittle as B+,
and then a bunch of guys at B.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
So we more or less agree ...
"It's for your own good. Big strong Devo knows whats best for Poppy" -- Mossback
Paul thinks them's fightin' words
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 4:39 PM PST up reply actions
No, actually, devo and I usually agree on most things
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Except the greatest English Prime Minister
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
We laugh at that scene,
but Boggs was absolutely right. Pitt the Elder really was the greatest PM by a mile.
"Dispatch knuckleheadedness with Bond-like aplomb." –74mk
Why Doolittle ahead of Carter?
It has to just be the fielding, right?
I’d put Carter ahead because it looks like his bat will carry him to at least the DH spot even if he can’t field any position adequately, whereas there are real questions as to whether Doolittle will hit enough to play 1B.
Yes, it's fielding.
From what I’ve heard, Doolittle has a fantastic glove at 1B, and has been doing well playing the outfield. In college he was a pretty damn good pitcher, so I’m assuming he has a decent arm.
I don't doubt that
I just don’t think the fielding makes up for the difference in their bats. Doolittle strikes out just as much as Carter, but Carter walks more and has a ton more power.
I think a lot of people overlook how much Carter walks
He’s not just a “high HR / high K” hitter – like Cust and Thome, and unlike your Dave Kingman or Tony Batista types, he also walks a ton.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not sure I get it
He’s not just a "high HR / high K" hitter – like Cust and Thome
What else is he?
Follow the commas:
like Cust and Thome … he also walks a ton.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Now I got it, thanks.
But his walk rate is closer to Kingman’s than Cust’s.
Doolittle's walk rate has been higher in the past and I expect it to be higher again in the future
The Cube’s useful (though badly misnamed) “Scouting report” gives him an 88 for patience. Carter scores a 78.
Fielding can make a LOT of difference. Doolittle is, by report, about a net-zero glove (+10 runs at first base). Carter is a butcher. Maybe he’ll improve, but he hasn’t done so yet…
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I don't know what The Cube is measuring, but...
Career BB/PA
Carter: 11.7%
Doolittle: 10.9%
It's also evaluating Doolittle's college #s
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Since I've got you here, Paul
Can you explain (roughly) how +/- would equate to wins?
For instance, we’ll say Giambi vs Barton — Smith’s projections next year are -8 for G, and +4 for Barton, so Barton has an advantage of 12 runs overall – is that still assuming the (roughly) 10 runs = 1 win formula?
Smith's projections are in runs, yes
Some other metrics are in plays. The difference between a converted play for an out and a non-converted play for a baserunner and no outs is about .8 runs, so typically you can multiply something like Dewan’s +/- by .8 to convert it into run terms.
Especially with fielding, though, you have to regress to the mean a lot because the sample sizes are not very large. This is why I find Smith’s projections to be as helpful as they are— the regression is already done for you.
FWIW, I’ve assessed Giambi as about a 1 win upgrade on Barton, based on being about 25 runs better with the bat and 15 runs worse with the glove (his numbers will likely look worse if he’s playing 1B full-time).
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
His offensive skill set makes me nervous
His BBs may be likely to go up, but I doubt way up. I doubt his power, because he’s shown in Stockton and nowhere else, and he’s not a very big guy. And he won’t have a good obp with all those Ks unless his BB rate goes up a whole lot or he’s some babip monster, which is not particularly likely. If his bat doesn’t play, it doesn’t matter if he’s +10 on D at 1B.
The A's colors are green and gold.
Not a very big guy?
He’s 6’3", 190 as of the measurements this season. To me, that says “projectable,” not “small.”
There’s a limit to how fast a guy can build up muscle (especially if, as we hope, he’s doing it w/o the benefit of roids). He had to stay trim in college because he was a pitcher. If he can get up to a ripped 210 or so by his peak years…
And, again, he’s showed the ability to strike out less in the past, which is a positive indicator that he has the potential to do so again in the future.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Huh, I did not know he was 6'3".... I think I must have gotten that impression from pictures...
Well, that makes me like him more.
The A's colors are green and gold.
doolittle is huge
and he’ s adding lots of muscle now that he’s not a pitcher.
A's v Giants "is kind of like the difference between going to see the Ramones and going to see the Bee Gees. A's fans will go see the Ramones." -BB 07/27/05
My new hope is that he makes it up to 235
like this guy.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
2012 projected rotation looks pretty good!
No. 1 Starter Brett Anderson
No. 2 Starter Trevor Cahill
No. 3 Starter Michael Inoa
No. 4 Starter Sean Gallagher
No. 5 Starter Gio Gonzalez
I have a hard time seeing Inoa in Oakland in 2012
I suppose it’s faintly possible, but it pretty much means him taking 2 levels a season 3 years in a row, which is unlikely at best.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Badler thinks he goes to full season ball in 2010
Of course he also thinks Anderson and Cahill are going to pitch in the majors in 2009 after starting in AAA
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 4:36 PM PST up reply actions
One o’them optimists, izzy?
Meh. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Well Inoa's only a #3 starter by 2012 so he could be even more optimistic I suppose
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 5:38 PM PST up reply actions
Just because he's the once in a generation talent like King Felix was
doesn’t mean we have to put him on the same rushed career path
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
Why not? Has Felix been hurt by his career path?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 9:53 PM PST up reply actions
The Mariners have certainly been hurt by his career path
Felix? Maybe, maybe not.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
considering he'll be a FA at age 25
I think it probably leans more towards not hurt.
Can't get enough of the Oakland A's? Visit Oaktown Awesomer's
God, that'll be a scary contract
"There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want" -Bill Watterson
True Felix has sucked for the past several years costing the Mariners
incalculable games. Or not.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2008 9:36 AM PST up reply actions
I think PT is saying that the Mariners are getting Felix pre-prime years
And he’ll probably be pitching for the Yankees when he’s really good.
by thejd44 on Dec 4, 2008 12:19 PM PST up reply actions
You do realize you're talking to someone
whose player promotion ideas assume the reserve clause is still in effect, right?
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Or that winning in the present is actually important
and that signing a player during his FA years is actually possible.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2008 4:46 PM PST up reply actions
Signing free agent pitchers is, by and large, retarded
There’s no reason to expect Felix to be any different.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
Unless he's actually, you know, good.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2008 6:39 PM PST up reply actions
If he's good, he will be overpaid.
If he’s bad, he will also be overpaid.
I don’t know about you, but to me that equates to “he will be overpaid.”
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I don't know about you, but I worry more about wins than
trying to calculate who is or isn’t overpaid by some arbitrary standard.
So if he’s good, I want him. If he’s bad, I don’t.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2008 8:58 PM PST up reply actions
Wait, are we still talking about male hookers?
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Sigh
Any player can be signed to a good contract or a bad contract. Regardless of that player’s intrinsic skills or lack thereof. (OK, if a guy is below replacement level, any contract you sign him to is by definition a bad one. But apart from that.)
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
There you go again.....you really need to see the forest get your eye out of one tree
Who gives a shit whether a contract is good or bad in isolation?
The important thing is how good the team is (fan’s perspective) and how much money the team is worth (owner’s perspective).
Where is the evidence that having the most underpaid players leads either to the most wins or the most enterprise value? I’ve never seen it. Produce it and you’ll have an argument.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 5, 2008 7:53 PM PST up reply actions
Carter 1B/3B/OF
If he’s all three of those then he’s definitely in the top 3….
"I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." -Yogi Berra
Apparently they feel good about Beane signing a certain free agent...
Their projected 2012 lineup includes Matt Holliday in left.
99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod
I like this idea. Beane should sign Holliday through 2012. You think he'd take a three year deal?
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 3, 2008 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
Not unless it was for way above market value.
The older a player gets, the more he wants long term security.
99 MPH with as much control as a deflating balloon - CurveballKing on H-Rod
I honestly don't see the point of the 2012/future lineups
they have no bearing on reality whatsoever
by jdr on Dec 3, 2008 5:19 PM PST up reply actions
fanpost that shows have we acquired all of our players through trades
I don’t see a search function on the fanposts, does anyone have a link tot he most recent “players acquired through trades” fanposts with all the pretty pictures.
HELMET: Sandurz, what's going on?
SANDURZ: It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to
blow!
Got it.
Here’s all the pretty pictures and stuff.
Jon Garland, pleasepleaseplease accept arbitration. Your mad iNNiNgZ eAtEr sKiLLz will be greater exemplified in next year's free agent class. kthxbai.
thank you fine sir
I’m trying to get a perspective on which of our top minor leaguers we traded/drafted for
HELMET: Sandurz, what's going on?
SANDURZ: It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to
blow!
also for those interested i found this over at mlb trade rumors
it shows all of billy’s trades, free agent signing, etc.
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/files/oakland_athletics_billy_beane.xls
HELMET: Sandurz, what's going on?
SANDURZ: It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to
blow!
From Keith Law
Jason (Bryan, Ohio): Recently Baseball America realeased Oakland’s top ten prospects and Faustino De los Santos was not listed. What happened from last year to this year for him to drop that much? Any prospects on that list that you see some true star potential in?
SportsNation Keith Law: Blew his elbow out. Not expected to pitch till midyear. Anderson, Cahill, and Inoa have star potential. I am much higher on Donaldson than they are.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
That's certainly true
Law love, love, loves Donaldson. Last time I saw he had him as a top 50 prospect.
Your 2008 Athletics: It's Nothing Personal.
I love Donaldson too.
I think he find his way into out 2010 lineup somewhere.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
He only spent half a season at high A ball this year
If there are injuries, he might be an emergency backup, but there’s no need to rush him. We have Kurt, we’ll (hopefully) find a third baseman by next year, and we have Barton and Doolittle (and maybe Carter) ahead of him at first.
I doubt he cracks the lineup by 2010.
He will most likley be in AA this year
and if all goes well be in AAA mid season.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
I think that would be rushing him, which there's no need to
because there’s no outstanding hole on the roster that he can fill. Kurt’s catching, Chavvy’s at third (Donaldson hasn’t proved that he can play either position at a major league level) and Barton, Doolittle, and Giambi/Johnson/Dunn are all ahead of him at 1B. Let him take his time and improve his defense at catcher, or move him to third.
More
cole -orlando: Thanks for chatting keith. Bigger upside and futher for cahill or anderson? eta for both?
SportsNation Keith Law: Cahill’s upside. I think Anderson could pitch in the big leagues this year.
"With 16-year-old Dominican righty Michel Inoa in tow, Gio Gonzalez improving at Triple-A and lefty Brett Anderson carving up Double-Abatters along with Simmons and Trevor Cahill, Oakland’s pitching depthis officially the envy of baseball." - BaseballAmerica.com
Buuuuuaaaaahaha...
Brett Anderson shall save the franchise.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Badler also thought he and Cahill would pitch in the bigs this year.
Nico could have the last laugh here.
It's not the results, it's how you look going about those results -- Tim McCarver
by WaddellCanseco on Dec 4, 2008 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
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.
