BA Top 30 (Baltimore)

[Stotle]

For those who didn't buy the book:


Matusz
Bell
Britton
Arrieta
Hobgood
Snyder
Erbe
Mickolio
Givens
Joseph
Lebron
Florimon
Avery
Patton
Ohlman
Jacobson
Cooney
Waring
Coffey
Hudson
Hoes
Drake
Cowan
R. Berry
Angle
Adams
Rosa
Spoone
Gamboa
Rowell


Don't remember who 31 was, and left my supplement at the office.

[Lucky Jim]

For those who didn't buy the book:


Matusz
Bell
Britton
Arrieta
Hobgood
Snyder
Erbe
Mickolio
Givens
Joseph



When I did my top-7, I came out the same, I think:



7. Erbe
6. Snyder
5. Hobgood
4. Arrieta
3. Britton
2. Bell
1. Matusz.

So I can't really argue.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1949988&highlight=matusz+britton+erbe+bell#post1949988

[Arthur_Bryant]

Brett Jacobson ended up eight slots above Ryan Berry.

I guess BA wants to see a full season out of injured pitchers--even good ones with track records. (See Spoone).

EDIT: Jacobson didn't even make Tony's MiL depth chart.

[Say O!]

Interesting that BA ranks Kam and Lebron that high. Would be real nice if both continue progressing and become solid power bullpen arms in 2010/2011. Good, cheap bullpen arms may help enable spending elsewhere to bring in some upper tier offensive talent, and avoid buying the Baez, Walker, Bradfords.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Nice solid placement for Givens and Ohlman. OTOH the highest of the 2009 overslot kid pitchers is Coffey at #19.

Florimon one slot above Avery... ouch.

Jerome Hoes, uh-oh.

[wildcard]

I would be interested in reading opinions of whether Jordan did a good job by taking Hobgood, Coffey and Ohlman instead of Crow or Green. Anyone have an opinion?

[GoldGlove21]

I would be interested in reading opinions of whether Jordan did a good job by taking Hobgood, Coffey and Ohlman instead of Crow or Green. Anyone have an opinion?

If he would have taken Matzek, then Matzek would have been either our #3 or most likely our #2 prospect. Green is considered to be a top 5 minor league shortstop at this point behind Castro, Escobar, and Gordon. The problem I have with the Hobgood pick is that come this year's draft the shortstop options are not likely to be better than Green and the best pitching prospect Taillon is about equal to Matzek.

If I am a team like the Orioles who are for all intensive purposes still focusing on next year, then I am sticking more funds into the draft. If that means I have to trade Wigginton for a song to sign a few over slot guys then that is what I am doing. I know risk is mitigated when you take multiple over slot guys verses a large single signing bonus prospect. That being said, Jordan has done well and you want to give him the benefit of the doubt. I will give him that while thinking that Hobgood was drafted because other guys had signing bonus concerns.

[KarlofDelaware]

31. Craig Tatum, catcher

[berto]

I like their list. I do hvae some problems with it though. I think Waring should definetly be ranked alot higher. I also think they ranked Givens and Jacobson to high. Also Wilfredo Perez should definetly be in the top 30.

[Arthur_Bryant]

I like their list. I do hvae some problems with it though. I think Waring should definetly be ranked alot higher. I also think they ranked Givens and Jacobson to high. Also Wilfredo Perez should definetly be in the top 30.

With his age and K issues Waring has a lot to prove. A good season at Bowie will go a long way and will certainly put him well up in the top 10.

The Brett Jacobson placement is a shocker. They must have found a couple of scouts who saw something to like.

Definitely agree on Perez. It's apparent from the list that BA doesn't like recently-injured pitchers.

[Lucky Jim]

Sickels had Jacobson as a B- prospect. So they're not alone.

[berto]

With his age and K issues Waring has a lot to prove. A good season at Bowie will go a long way and will certainly put him well up in the top 10.

The Brett Jacobson placement is a shocker. They must have found a couple of scouts who saw something to like.

Definitely agree on Perez. It's apparent from the list that BA doesn't like recently-injured pitchers.


Yeah Waring does have K issues, but every single season his K rate had declined significantly, while putting up consistently hitting for a good average and putting up good Power numbers. I know he is a little old but so was Reimold. I didn't expect him to be up in the top 10, even though on my list he would be. I am just suprised he is not atleast in the top 15.

[Three Run Homer]

To me the biggest head scratcher is Kyle Hudson at 20, ahead of Angle. Angle is a similar player but more advanced and with better numbers.

[Arthur_Bryant]

Yeah Waring does have K issues, but every single season his K rate had declined significantly, while putting up consistently hitting for a good average and putting up good Power numbers. I know he is a little old but so was Reimold. I didn't expect him to be up in the top 10, even though on my list he would be. I am just suprised he is not atleast in the top 15.

Not true on the bolded part. His K rate climbed in 2008; he struck out once every 3.2 plate appearances.

Don't get me wrong--I have been watching BW with interest ever since the trade. Hey, between NCAA and rookie ball, he hit 47 HRs in 2007. But K rate is a big issue with minor league players, especially when it gets down to 1:4 or worse. I'm sure that's a big reason he isn't more highly rated. It's probably the main reason the Reds were willing to trade him.

But he had a real nice bounceback year last season, and if he improves again at Bowie then 2008 will be forgotten, and he'll be on everybody's Top 10.

[Tony-OH]

With his age and K issues Waring has a lot to prove. A good season at Bowie will go a long way and will certainly put him well up in the top 10.

The Brett Jacobson placement is a shocker. They must have found a couple of scouts who saw something to like.

Definitely agree on Perez. It's apparent from the list that BA doesn't like recently-injured pitchers.

I always find this list interesting but I agree, that's the only "shocking" thing on the whole list. Honestly, his previous draft status is the only reason I can think of why anyone would think he's a prospect. He's got some decent velocity 92-94, but an Olympic archer gets more movement.

Also, I don't know who they talked to but apparently it was not the Orioles. I'm pretty amazed they didn't include Beal or Wirsch. Apparently, BA puts much more emphasis on draft status.

[ThisIsOurHouse]

Am I seeing things or is Beal not on the list, the man pitched great last year with the exception of two starts. He is a high potential player who actually has a year of baseball under his belt. I am very suprised BA left him off their list.

[Tony-OH]

To me the biggest head scratcher is Kyle Hudson at 20, ahead of Angle. Angle is a similar player but more advanced and with better numbers.

Hudson was drafted higher. For BA, that's good enough apparently.

[Lucky Jim]

Am I seeing things or is Beal not on the list, the man pitched great last year with the exception of two starts. He is a high potential player who actually has a year of baseball under his belt. I am very suprised BA left him off their list.

There's not much difference between being ranked No. 20 and being ranked No. 25. Hudson has plus-plus speed and he hasn't been 100% committed to baseball until recently. The possession of one plus-skill is probably the difference, but it helps that Hudson shows good contact skills and good patience. Further, isn't the fact that the Orioles drafted Hudson higher than Angle some evidence that they value him as a better prospect?

As for the other stuff, well, folks place different emphasis on different things. Even the OH's write-up on Beal shows why someone might not rank him that highly yet:


Currently he sits in the 88-90 range with good sink that enables him to get a good amount of ground balls (60%) while allowing just three home runs. Although his curveball is average right now, he's got a good feel for pitch and again, there's a chance for it to become much better. He's got a very good feel for the changeup and right now it's his second best pitch. Beal's best attribute is his impeccable control.

He's got a below-average/fringe-average fastball, a below average curveball, and good feel for a change. He's pure projection, with fairly refined command. But the fact remains that he can live in the strikezone with below average stuff at the lower levels. But many folks - who don't put as much stock in projection - aren't going to be buyers until they see some of that projection come to fruition.

The same is true of Wirsch, who even this site acknowledges:


Wirsch was available in the 7th round due to a fastball that sits in the 85-87 MPH range, but the Orioles see a nice loose arm and good hand speed and predict his velocity will improve as he physically matures

If they're bear-ish about guys growing into velocity then that's just something to factor into how you value the lists. If anything, the fact that both were omitted is a compliment to the list. Consistency is a key component of any analytical method. It's evidence they have an approach and they're sticking to it.

I'm not sure that any of these examples are much to gripe about. I think the point with both of these guys is that we wouldn't have got them at the cost/slot we did if everyone was as high on them as we are. We're putting out stock in the fact that Jordan can find value in guys that others can't see. Beal has 75 IP at rookie level and Wirsch has 16 IP. That's not much time or performance to turn around that public perception.

[Tony-OH]

There's not much difference between being ranked No. 20 and being ranked No. 25. Hudson has plus-plus speed and he hasn't been 100% committed to baseball until recently. The possession of one plus-skill is probably the difference, but it helps that Hudson shows good contact skills and good patience. Further, isn't the fact that the Orioles drafted Hudson higher than Angle some evidence that they value him as a better prospect?

As for the other stuff, well, folks place different emphasis on different things. Even the OH's write-up on Beal shows why someone might not rank him that highly yet:



He's got a below-average/fringe-average fastball, a below average curveball, and good feel for a change. He's pure projection, with fairly refined command. But the fact remains that he can live in the strikezone with below average stuff at the lower levels. But many folks - who don't put as much stock in projection - aren't going to be buyers until they see some of that projection come to fruition.

The same is true of Wirsch, who even this site acknowledges:



If they're bear-ish about guys growing into velocity then that's just something to factor into how you value the lists. If anything, the fact that both were omitted is a compliment to the list. Consistency is a key component of any analytical method. It's evidence they have an approach and they're sticking to it.

I'm not sure that any of these examples are much to gripe about. I think the point with both of these guys is that we wouldn't have got them at the cost/slot we did if everyone was as high on them as we are. We're putting out stock in the fact that Jordan can find value in guys that others can't see. Beal has 75 IP at rookie level and Wirsch has 16 IP. That's not much time or performance to turn around that public perception.

I guess everyone has different thoughts on what makes a prospect, but I'm guessing there is not an organization in baseball that would take Eddie Gamboa or Billy Rowell over Beal or Wirsch.

[Fan of Newhan]

Is Robbie Widlansky ever expected to reach the big leagues? I realize he was a little old for A ball last year, but he put up great numbers in Frederick. I rarely see his name appear on any "prospect" lists.

[Lucky Jim]

I guess everyone has different thoughts on what makes a prospect, but I'm guessing there is not an organization in baseball that would take Eddie Gamboa or Billy Rowell over Beal or Wirsch.

I doubt everyone has different thoughts.

I offered a reason why I thought Beal and Wirsch - who are similar pitchers - haven't come onto radar yet. That's it. I'm not sure I agree, and I admit that I'm more cautiously optimistic about these guys than some others are.

I guess every prospect involved in a ranking exists at some kind of cross-cut of projected value and current skills/profile. Most teams would prefer a player with projection than a fallen prospect like Rowell, I guess. Heck, most teams would prefer an 8th round pick over Rowell. If they'd rather have a reset, then it's hard to argue that preferring anything over Rowell is a real argument for the other player. It's just an argument against Rowell.

In the end, I guess they probably see Rowell as a guy who appeared at one point to be a true 1st round talent. And who put up a .750+ OPS at 18 at A ball.

In the end, if they demand to see more from a prospect than 88 MPH fastballs in the Rookie League, that's just where they stand. I think it's fair not to agree with it. I was simply pointing out what I thought was their rationale.

As for Gamboa, well, he had a great year. I think, right now, BA would say that the odds of Gamboa providing MLB value at some point in his career is greater than either Beal or Wirsch doing it. And that's why he's on the list.

[LookinUp]

Is Robbie Widlansky ever expected to reach the big leagues? I realize he was a little old for A ball last year, but he put up great numbers in Frederick. I rarely see his name appear on any "prospect" lists.

He'll force his way onto lists if he rakes at AA like he did in Frederick last year.

[RZNJ]

I guess everyone has different thoughts on what makes a prospect, but I'm guessing there is not an organization in baseball that would take Eddie Gamboa or Billy Rowell over Beal or Wirsch.

I would agree on this one. I would also rank Angle higher than Hudson. Seems like the only thing Hudson does better than Angle is run faster. However, on the baseball field Angle looks like the better CF and basestealer.

[cnmilton]

I had the opportunity to talk to one of the Os minor league coaches (Werner). He seems to really love Jesse Beals ability. In his opinion he said that Jesse is going to be a really good pitcher sometime soon.

[Lucky Jim]

I would agree on this one. I would also rank Angle higher than Hudson. Seems like the only thing Hudson does better than Angle is run faster. However, on the baseball field Angle looks like the better CF and basestealer.

I don't disagree with this, and I'm not really defending the choice. As I said, they're very similar players who have been ranked very similarly. We're really complaining about five spots in the twenties.

Hudson is an exceptional athlete who is still raw but shows good contact skills and good patience. It's a reasonable ground for distinguishing the two, even if you don't agree with it.

[RZNJ]

I don't disagree with this, and I'm not really defending the choice. As I said, they're very similar players who have been ranked very similarly. We're really complaining about five spots in the twenties.

Hudson is an exceptional athlete who is still raw but shows good contact skills and good patience. It's a reasonable ground for distinguishing the two, even if you don't agree with it.

Well, I do diagree with it but I do understand the reasoning. Still, Hudson showed less power at Delmarva than even Angle did when he was there. Perhaps he turns his plus, plus speed into being an elite basestealer but as we know basestealing and defense are about more than just speed. Could Hudson develop into a better hitter than Angle? Sure. It just looks to me that Angle, if you believe the reports on his defense, is just a better version of Hudson, whose speed (Angle's speed) is a tick or two below. Why is Hudson considered an exceptional athlete and Angle isn't? Hudson played football. Big deal. It's what you can do on a baseball field. Hudson is considered a great athlete because he played football and he's supposedly an 80 runner on the 20-80 scale. As far as baseball is concerned, it seems like his ceiling is something like Matt Angle unless there's some hidden power potential that rears it's head this year.

Also, I believe the "raw" tag is used too much. I realize Hudson split some of his time between baseball and football in college, BUT he played baseball every season in college and he's now got 1 1/2 years of pro ball. Assuming he played baseball all through HS (which seems safe to assume) I don't think I'd use the word "raw" at this point.

After reading your post again, are you saying that BA is using Hudson's contact skills and patience as reasonable grounds for distinguishing the two? If so, I would disagree with that as well. Angle showed similar patience and better contact skills at one level higher this year. In fact, Hudson's 91 strikeouts in 418 AB's this year is a poor contact rate for someone who has the power numbers (10 extra base hits out of 113 hits) of a slap hitter.

[hoosiers]

Hudson was an earlier draft pick and IMO would be considered the better talent. It can time for tools to translate to results.

Time with the college football team almost certainly took away time from the baseball team. And Hudson was injured shortly after being drafted and did not play the whole short season.

The stats-based analysis leans to Angle, but the professional opinions seem to lean to Hudson. We'll see.

[PBR Street Gang]

How much of those rankings "validate" BA's pre-draft ratings and therefore make people more inclined to believe what BA's selling on yearly player hype?

You see it all the time in college football recruiting. If there's a lot of teams after a prospect then he must be "great". If a prospect is being recruited by a top tier school with a multitude of rabid fans the 3rd, 4th, or 5th star is added and those fans believe they are getting their next great player.

Sells a lot of subscriptions and affirms their ratings.

Everyone loves lists.

[Lucky Jim]

Why is Hudson considered an exceptional athlete and Angle isn't? Hudson is considered a great athlete because he played football and he's supposedly an 80 runner on the 20-80 scale.

After reading your post again, are you saying that BA is using Hudson's contact skills and patience as reasonable grounds for distinguishing the two? If so, I would disagree with that as well.

Well, you answered your first question. He's not "supposedly" an 80 runner on a 20-80 scale. The scale exists, and that's where Hudson resides on it.

The second point isn't what I'm saying at all. The point was clearly that Hudson is considered an exceptional athlete while Angle is not.

[Fan of Newhan]

Does Greg Miclat still hold any "prospect" status? I remember thinking he could be our "shortstop of the future" at one point not too long ago, but it looks like Florimon has passed him in that regard.

[Frobby]

Hudson (age 22, Delmarva): .284/.365/.314, 8 2B, 2 3B, 0 HR, 21 RBI, 31 SB 16 CS
Angle (age 22, Delmarva): .287/.385/.379, 22 2B, 5 3B, 4 HR, 35 RBI, 37 SB 11 CS

I look at Hudson's ISO of .030 -- 10 extra base hits all year -- and I find it extremely difficult to consider him any kind of a prospect. Hudson's 19-year old teammates Hoes and Avery managed 21 and 25 extra base hits, respectively.

I know Lucky Jim is trying to provide a rationale for BA, even though he isn't endorsing that opinion, but I just can't buy it. Angle's a much better prospect than Hudson.

[Lucky Jim]

Hudson (age 22, Delmarva): .284/.365/.314, 8 2B, 2 3B, 0 HR, 21 RBI, 31 SB 16 CS
Angle (age 22, Delmarva): .287/.385/.379, 22 2B, 5 3B, 4 HR, 35 RBI, 37 SB 11 CS

I look at Hudson's ISO of .030 -- 10 extra base hits all year -- and I find it extremely difficult to consider him any kind of a prospect. Hudson's 19-year old teammates Hoes and Avery managed 21 and 25 extra base hits, respectively.

I know Lucky Jim is trying to provide a rationale for BA, even though he isn't endorsing that opinion, but I just can't buy it. Angle's a much better prospect than Hudson.

It's five freaking slots in the 20s on the list. They're all marginal prospects. I'll go out on a limb and say it makes sense that you'd rank a guy with a plus skill five slots over similar fringe-y prospects without any plus skill. Because, all else aside, that's something. I like Angle, but this nitpicking over a reasonable decision just makes no sense to me.


Hudson was better known for his exploits as a wide receiver in his first two years at Illinois, leading the football team in receptions as a freshman and again as a sophomore. Relegated to a supporting role on the gridiron last fall, he has taken out his frustrations on opposing pitchers this spring. He ended the regular season among the NCAA Division I leaders in batting (.411), on-base percentage (.511), runs (60) and steals (39). He also set Big 10 Conference records for runs (40) and steals (25) in league games, and tied a school mark when he swiped his 40th base in the opening round of the league tournament. Hudson is a 5-foot-11, 165-pound burner whose games revolves around his top-of-the-line speed. He has run the 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds and uses his quickness well on the bases and in center field. He's an outstanding athlete who once won the Illinois state high school high jump title with a mark of 6-foot-10 and earned 15 letters in four sports. Hudson offers little power, but he understands his limitations and concentrates on getting on base. He uses a slap approach at the plate and is a good bunter. His arm is well-below-average, though he compensates by getting to balls quickly. A team that loves speed and values athletes at a premium position could take Hudson as early as the third round.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php?t=64702

[Lucky Jim]

I'm going to finish my point by noting that implicit in BA's ranking is the fact that they're uncertain that Angle has the speed to be a real basestealing threat at the MLB level. They may be discounting Angle's defense, or they may think that a bit more time (i.e., more than one full year) will help Hudson make up some of that difference.

I think Angle will make someone a good fourth OF. They may think that Hudson offers a better chance of being a second division starting OF, not unlike this guy:


Year Team Lg Age Org. Level Pos Ln G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HBP IBB SH SF DP AVG OBP SLG OPS
1994 GCL Rangers GCL 18 TEX Rk of 60 211 34 48 7 1 1 17 18 4 41 34 3 0 2 3 1 .227 .357 .284 641
1995 Hudson Valley NYPL 19 TEX A- of 65 252 42 67 3 0 0 20 20 6 35 31 1 3 1 2 9 .266 .355 .278 633
1996 Brevard County FSL 20 FLA A+ of 108 383 39 100 9 2 0 30 20 10 45 65 3 0 7 0 8 .261 .343 .295 638
1997 Kane County Midw 21 FLA A of 135 531 80 147 23 4 3 49 28 11 60 72 3 2 14 3 5 .277 .352 .352 704
1998 Charlotte FSL 22 TEX A+ of 81 302 55 86 12 4 4 39 26 8 44 32 0 0 4 6 2 .285 .369 .391 760

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/Players/P/Scott-Podsednik.shtml

[Stotle]

Hudson (age 22, Delmarva): .284/.365/.314, 8 2B, 2 3B, 0 HR, 21 RBI, 31 SB 16 CS
Angle (age 22, Delmarva): .287/.385/.379, 22 2B, 5 3B, 4 HR, 35 RBI, 37 SB 11 CS

I look at Hudson's ISO of .030 -- 10 extra base hits all year -- and I find it extremely difficult to consider him any kind of a prospect. Hudson's 19-year old teammates Hoes and Avery managed 21 and 25 extra base hits, respectively.

I know Lucky Jim is trying to provide a rationale for BA, even though he isn't endorsing that opinion, but I just can't buy it. Angle's a much better prospect than Hudson.

This is the huge issue with being overly reliant on stats. LJ touches on a point also made by another poster in the thread -- Hudson's toolset is better than Angle's, but he lacks the reps thus far for the tools to manifest into skills. Prospecting isn't about trying to decide who is better now. It's about trying to project who is ultimately going to better down the line. Tony says as much when he continually reminds readers that HIS list is all about, "If I could only have one guy in my system, which one would I want." To pretend that choosing Hudson over Angle is indefensible is hyperbolic at best.

Should we take a look at D'Vontrey Richardson's stats at FSU, compare it to everyone else selected in the 5th-10th round (D'Vo was a 5th rounder) and call the Brewers silly? Would anyone want to take a bet that Russell Wilson (2B/QB NC State) will not be off the draft board in the first five rounds despite having yet to bat over .250 in spring or summer ball?

[Frobby]

This is the huge issue with being overly reliant on stats.

I'm just giving you my opinion here. Hudson isn't a high schooler, he went to college for 3 years. For a guy like that to get 10 extra base hits in an entire season suggests to me that he simply isn't going to make it to the major leagues. If I'm overly reliant on stats, so be it.

I hope Hudson comes out and has a good year in 2010 and shows I have no idea what I'm talking about.

[DrungoHazewood]

Hudson is a 5-foot-11, 165-pound burner whose games revolves around his top-of-the-line speed. He has run the 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds and uses his quickness well on the bases and in center field. He's an outstanding athlete who once won the Illinois state high school high jump title with a mark of 6-foot-10 and earned 15 letters in four sports.

Apologize in advance for a momentary thread derailment, but I think that's unbelievable. Dude high jumped nearly a foot over his head. I know, Olympic athletes do that all the time, but I can conceive of hitting a 450-ft homer easier than I can imagine jumping over a bar set at 6' 8".

Please return to discussions on Hudson's projectability...

[Frobby]

Apologize in advance for a momentary thread derailment, but I think that's unbelievable. Dude high jumped nearly a foot over his head. I know, Olympic athletes do that all the time, but I can conceive of hitting a 450-ft homer easier than I can imagine jumping over a bar set at 6' 8".

Please return to discussions on Hudson's projectability...

Well, as soon as high jumping becomes an important part of baseball, Hudson should be great. Maybe he'll hurdle a CF fence on his way to making a catch. :D

[Stotle]

I'm just giving you my opinion here. Hudson isn't a high schooler, he went to college for 3 years. For a guy like that to get 10 extra base hits in an entire season suggests to me that he simply isn't going to make it to the major leagues. If I'm overly reliant on stats, so be it.

I hope Hudson comes out and has a good year in 2010 and shows I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Right, but even your above summary of Hudson's career is slanted. You are simply ignoring that 1) he didn't get to practice in the fall because of football.
, 2) he may have had his developmental time in the spring limited because of football practice (I honestly don't remember the coaches arrangements and don't have time to look up) and 3) he was limited in his summer ball opportunities because of the need to get back for football summer practice.

I don't think the issue is that Hudson is a good bet to make the majors while Angle isn't. I never claimed as much. I think your quoting of marginally important stats (given the facts surrounding the particular players in question) might be leading you to a viewpoint that shouldn't necessarily be as black-and-white as you are making it out to be.

Your tone suggests you feel Angle is a legit prospect whereas Hudson is NP'd, and that the stats show that assessment to be true. I think that is a misapplication of stats through ingnoring the circumstances at least partially responsible for those stats. To be clear, I'm not saying Hudson is a better prospect. I'm just saying that there is probably room to disagree as to who is currently the more valuable asset to the organization (considering present and future).

[Frobby]

Right, but even your above summary of Hudson's career is slanted. You are simply ignoring that 1) he didn't get to practice in the fall because of football.
, 2) he may have had his developmental time in the spring limited because of football practice (I honestly don't remember the coaches arrangements and don't have time to look up) and 3) he was limited in his summer ball opportunities because of the need to get back for football summer practice.

I don't think the issue is that Hudson is a good bet to make the majors while Angle isn't. I never claimed as much. I think your quoting of marginally important stats (given the facts surrounding the particular players in question) might be leading you to a viewpoint that shouldn't necessarily be as black-and-white as you are making it out to be.

Your tone suggests you feel Angle is a legit prospect whereas Hudson is NP'd, and that the stats show that assessment to be true. I think that is a misapplication of stats through ingnoring the circumstances at least partially responsible for those stats. To be clear, I'm not saying Hudson is a better prospect. I'm just saying that there is probably room to disagree as to who is currently the more valuable asset to the organization (considering present and future).

A couple of things. I never suggested that you (or Lucky Jim, or BA) had claimed that Hudson was a good bet to make the majors. And frankly, I don't really view Angle as a "legit prospect," either. At best, he's a good defensive outfielder who has some on-base skills, who maybe could scratch out a living as a 4th or 5th OF, but frankly, I doubt it. He's less of a prospect than, say, Jeff Fiorentino was a few years ago, and we all know how Fio's career has gone.

Back on Hudson, while I appreciate (and did when I first posted in this thread) that he has devoted a lot of time to football that he could have been devoting to baseball, I still can't get over that stat of 10 XBH in an entire season of play. A guy with Hudson's speed ought to be able to hit more than 8 doubles in a season just by accident. Being a slap hitter is one thing, but that's just ridiculous. If you've got an example of someone who hit for that little power coming out of college into the minors, who nevertheless went on to have more than a cup of coffee in the majors, let me know. There were 432 players who had 100 PA in MLB last year and only 3 of them had an ISO as low or lower than Hudson put up in low A at the age of 22. I suppose Hudson may learn to hit with a little more pop, but I'd say the odds are extremely long.

[Lucky Jim]

A couple of things. I never suggested that you (or Lucky Jim, or BA) had claimed that Hudson was a good bet to make the majors. And frankly, I don't really view Angle as a "legit prospect," either. At best, he's a good defensive outfielder who has some on-base skills, who maybe could scratch out a living as a 4th or 5th OF, but frankly, I doubt it. He's less of a prospect than, say, Jeff Fiorentino was a few years ago, and we all know how Fio's career has gone.

Back on Hudson, while I appreciate (and did when I first posted in this thread) that he has devoted a lot of time to football that he could have been devoting to baseball, I still can't get over that stat of 10 XBH in an entire season of play. A guy with Hudson's speed ought to be able to hit more than 8 doubles in a season just by accident. Being a slap hitter is one thing, but that's just ridiculous. If you've got an example of someone who hit for that little power coming out of college into the minors, who nevertheless went on to have more than a cup of coffee in the majors, let me know. There were 432 players who had 100 PA in MLB last year and only 3 of them had an ISO as low or lower than Hudson put up in low A at the age of 22. I suppose Hudson may learn to hit with a little more pop, but I'd say the odds are extremely long.

I linked to Podsednik's MiLB numbers - he didn't "come out of college" but I, like Stotle perhaps, think you're discounting the impact on development that Hudson's commitment to Division I football as a starting wide receiver had on the amount of baseball he was able to play. That's not a hobby.

Juan Pierre's ISO at 22 in AA was .054.
Willie Taveras put up a .051 ISO in AA at 22 as well.

Remember, this was Hudson's first full year. If there's no uptick in power next year, then the complaints will have far more merit. But the fact that he wasn't overwhelmed, and that he showed good patience, are equally important.

It's a huge flag. No one's arguing that he's a great prospect. But Angle is pretty much maxed-out development-wise. There's plenty of room for Hudson to develop still. Will he? Who knows. But the tools are there to do so, and that's what these lists are about.

[LookinUp]

He's less of a prospect than, say, Jeff Fiorentino was a few years ago, and we all know how Fio's career has gone.


Derailment #2.

Jeff Fiorentino had a .900 OPS in AAA last year, including a .943 OPS away from lefty-hitter killing Norfolk.

Who'd have thunk it? Good BB/K rates too.

[Stotle]

A couple of things. I never suggested that you (or Lucky Jim, or BA) had claimed that Hudson was a good bet to make the majors. And frankly, I don't really view Angle as a "legit prospect," either. At best, he's a good defensive outfielder who has some on-base skills, who maybe could scratch out a living as a 4th or 5th OF, but frankly, I doubt it. He's less of a prospect than, say, Jeff Fiorentino was a few years ago, and we all know how Fio's career has gone.

Back on Hudson, while I appreciate (and did when I first posted in this thread) that he has devoted a lot of time to football that he could have been devoting to baseball, I still can't get over that stat of 10 XBH in an entire season of play. A guy with Hudson's speed ought to be able to hit more than 8 doubles in a season just by accident. Being a slap hitter is one thing, but that's just ridiculous. If you've got an example of someone who hit for that little power coming out of college into the minors, who nevertheless went on to have more than a cup of coffee in the majors, let me know. There were 432 players who had 100 PA in MLB last year and only 3 of them had an ISO as low or lower than Hudson put up in low A at the age of 22. I suppose Hudson may learn to hit with a little more pop, but I'd say the odds are extremely long.

I understand your concerns, but I don't undertake any obligation to try and prove Hudson is going to have a ML career. My point has always simply been that it isn't crazy for a source like BA to value Hudson's ceiling over Angle's floor, when Angle's likely outcome is a 4th OF at best. Without putting too much weight in a small sample size, Hudson actually picked-up momentum and put together a very strong middle of the season (June/July).

Anyway, I could see someone making the argument that as long as Hudson is able to improve his reads and routes through lots of reps over the next three years, he could provide solid value along the lines of a Juan Pierre, Carlos Gomez, Scott Podsednik, etc. Angle is a very good defender but he'll never be able to cover the ground that Hudson can cover. I'm just saying that it isn't unreasonable to think that Hudson's potential career is over after 528 PAs in the low minors. He's a long shot, but so are most of the people in the second half of the O's Top 30 and below.

[DrungoHazewood]

I see Hudson a little like Lorenzo Scott (http://www.baseball-reference.com/minors/player.cgi?id=scott-001lor) a few years ago. Both were football players with great athletic skills and a serious lack of baseball skill refinement. Scott snuck into a few OH top 30 lists (or at least honorable mentions) based almost completely on projectability and growth and the fact his baseball skills were behind the curve because of football.

And both had a serious flaw that by itself almost precludes them from becoming major leaguers. Scott struck out in something like 40% ABs in A ball. Hudson had Roy Thomas (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/t/thomaro01.shtml)' ISO.

Scott has actually done much better than I thought he would, and has actually been a decent hitter in AA/AAA the last few years. But he's 27 and will be lucky to ever play in the majors.

The vast majority of players in the Sally League never make the majors, much less have a real career. Even fewer do so after having years with such obvious flaws. But there's always a chance...

[LookinUp]

The weak arm issue also greatly diminishes Hudson's value. At least Angle projects as a real viable defensive replacement.

[Frobby]

Angle is a very good defender but he'll never be able to cover the ground that Hudson can cover.

I'd be interested to get the views of Doc Shorebird and Tony on this specific point. I accept the fact that Hudson is faster than Angle. However, from what I have read, Angle isn't just "very good" defensively, he's outstanding. A few quotes from the prospect tracker:


“He’s the best centerfielder in our organization. He played college so he’s a little more mature than these high school kids. He gets better reads on balls. He plays good centerfield but he also plays good left center and right center. He covers a lot of acres out there I tell you. The basket catch he made the other night was the best catch you’ll see all year. He’s a baseball player. He comes to the field and he knows what he has to do.”


“You watch Angle, he plays so hard every game, runs so hard to every ball. He dives at the right situations. He judges balls really well and to have a guy like him in center field is awesome. He’s catching balls in right field and left field. You don’t see too many athletes like that in High-A. He’s got the best range against anyone I’ve played with or played against. He’s the best I’ve seen. Thank god he’s on my team, I love it.”

And from Tony's write-up on the top prospects list:


Defensively, he's the best defensive center fielder in the system who covers a lot of ground side to side and his arm is strong enough to play in center field.

Now obviously I accept the fact that Hudson is faster and is still learning the game defensively (the same can be said of Avery). At the same time, there are some guys who just have the instinct for reading the ball off the bat and getting a great jump. Angle seems to be a guy like that. And it's not like the guy has no speed, he just isn't as fast as Hudson.

[Stotle]

I'd be interested to get the views of Doc Shorebird and Tony on this specific point. I accept the fact that Hudson is faster than Angle. However, from what I have read, Angle isn't just "very good" defensively, he's outstanding. A few quotes from the prospect tracker:





And from Tony's write-up on the top prospects list:



Now obviously I accept the fact that Hudson is faster and is still learning the game defensively (the same can be said of Avery). At the same time, there are some guys who just have the instinct for reading the ball off the bat and getting a great jump. Angle seems to be a guy like that. And it's not like the guy has no speed, he just isn't as fast as Hudson.

Right, I'm not disputing that Angle is the better player right now. I think the question is how people view each player's current skillset and what type of player that skillset can produce. Sure, Doc's and Tony's opinions matter. But I'd have to know how much of Hudson Tony has himself seen and how successful both he and Doc are at projecting.

And I would request the same thing about any individual scout BA talks to -- I just think some deference should be given to the fact that BA is asking around to multiple scouts and coaches and multiple organizations to try and get concensus views on the players they cover. Again, not saying BA has the order right, but I can't see dismissing it out-of-hand.

[Stotle]

Just went and looked up the numbers. Does everyone realize how much Hudson's bad August dragged down his overall numbers?

At Delmarva excluding 74 ABs in August:
AB - 317
AVG - .303
OBP - .377
SLG - .338
OPS - .715
BB - 37
BB% - 10.4%
SO - 62
BB/SO - .60
H - 96
2B - 8
3B - 1

I see plenty to be optimistic about with those numbers, considering it was his first full year focusing on baseball. Power is a huge flag, but I see someone with a decent understanding of the strikezone and how to work a count and reasonable contact skills. He also hits primarily groundballs (65.3%) and linedrives (18.4%).

[Tony-OH]

I'd be interested to get the views of Doc Shorebird and Tony on this specific point. I accept the fact that Hudson is faster than Angle. However, from what I have read, Angle isn't just "very good" defensively, he's outstanding.


I'm going to caveat this with the fact that I've seen Hudson one time in Aberdeen so I'm going almost exclusively off what I was told by other scouts. While Hudson is faster than Angle (some beleive he's the fastest in the organization) , he has neither the instincts or the arm that Angle has so it's doubtful he will ever be a better defensive outfielder than Angle.

Offensively, I agree with Frobby, 10 extra base hits in the Sally League as a 22-year old is certainly a giant red flag for me. I understand his lack of experience, and I understand he has some tools, but after I saw him at Aberdeen I immediately thought he was a reach as a fourth round draft pick and he's done nothing since then to change that opinion.

Angle doesn't have a lot of power either, but he consistently squares the ball up, hits to all fields, improved as a bunter, and has outstanding base running and stealing instincts despite being just an above average runner. Like Brian Roberts, he's a guy who steals more on instincts than blinding speed.

While I don't find it inconceivable that someone could like Hudson more as a prospect, I believe those who do are putting more weight into the potential that a player can maximize a tool with experience over a guy who has already shown he can maximize his tools at the professional level.

For my money, I'll take Angle every day of the week and twice on Sunday. :D

[Tony-OH]

Right, I'm not disputing that Angle is the better player right now. I think the question is how people view each player's current skillset and what type of player that skillset can produce. Sure, Doc's and Tony's opinions matter. But I'd have to know how much of Hudson Tony has himself seen and how successful both he and Doc are at projecting.

And I would request the same thing about any individual scout BA talks to -- I just think some deference should be given to the fact that BA is asking around to multiple scouts and coaches and multiple organizations to try and get concensus views on the players they cover. Again, not saying BA has the order right, but I can't see dismissing it out-of-hand.


I do the same thing and I think my track record for projecting out is easily found by looking back through our lists. Not sure what your point is, but I'm very secure on my lists and projections.

I don't just sit at home looking at few stats and seeing a guy once or twice before making an opinion. I talk with scouts in and out of the organization, but the major difference is I follow ONE team, not 30.

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view. I respect the guys that put to together the BA lists because they have been doing this a long time, but I think you over estimate the amount of people who they talk. It would be impossible for BA to talk to as many people as I talk to about most of Orioles prospects because they have to cover the entire MLB.

Thanks for questioning my ability to project though. :rolleyestf:

[Stotle]

I do the same thing and I think my track record for projecting out is easily found by looking back through our lists. Not sure what your point is, but I'm very secure on my lists and projections.

I don't just sit at home looking at few stats and seeing a guy once or twice before making an opinion. I talk with scouts in and out of the organization, but the major difference is I follow ONE team, not 30.

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view. I respect the guys that put to together the BA lists because they have been doing this a long time, but I think you over estimate the amount of people who they talk. It would be impossible for BA to talk to as many people as I talk to about most of Orioles prospects because they have to cover the entire MLB.

Thanks for questioning my ability to project though. :rolleyestf:

Not at all what I said, and I pointed out that I would ask any singular source the exact same things I would ask you -- how has that person done projecting this type of talent, and how much have they seen that particular player. To the extent anyone wanted my opinion opinion on a player, I would include with it the number of times I saw the player.

Not a slight towards you at all. It's just how I view transparency in assessments.

[Lucky Jim]

Again, not saying BA has the order right, but I can't see dismissing it out-of-hand.

Things like this get emphasized and re-emphasized and still these discussions turn personal. And I have no idea why when the ultimate point of contention is so narrow, is clearly stated as such, and makes no conclusions that one assessment is better than any other.

All that's really been argued is that the decision isn't based solely off of draft status and that it's not unreasonable.


Main Entry: un·rea·son·able
Pronunciation: \-ˈrēz-nə-bəl, -ˈrē-zən-ə-bəl\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century

1 a : not governed by or acting according to reason <unreasonable people> b : not conformable to reason : absurd <unreasonable beliefs>
2 : exceeding the bounds of reason or moderation <working under unreasonable pressure>

Are those extremist views?

[Frobby]

Things like this get emphasized and re-emphasized and still these discussions turn personal. And I have no idea why when the ultimate point of contention is so narrow, is clearly stated as such, and makes no conclusions that one assessment is better than any other.

All that's really been argued is that the decision isn't based solely off of draft status and that it's not unreasonable.

I suspect this post is not really directed at me, but I acknowledged in my first post that you weren't so much agreeing with BA as merely saying they have a defensible position. Certainly, I'm not taking any of this personally, though I was a bit irritated that it was implied that I hadn't considered the fact that Hudson had devoted a lot of time to football rather than baseball.

For me, it's not personal, I just think Tony's logic is much better than BA's in this case; in fact, I think BA's logic is marginal at best. Then again, I've never been much of a "tools" guy, especially if we are talking about one tool.

I'm finished with the Angle/Hudson discussion, as it really isn't worth this much time and energy.

[wickedwitch]

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view. It's not a question of believing or not believing. There is no one correct way in ranking prospects. Different lists weigh different skills in different manners. Some put more emphasis on raw tools or on current production or on floor or ceiling or some combination these.

Personally, I prefer Angle.

[rhall]

I do the same thing and I think my track record for projecting out is easily found by looking back through our lists. Not sure what your point is, but I'm very secure on my lists and projections.

I don't just sit at home looking at few stats and seeing a guy once or twice before making an opinion. I talk with scouts in and out of the organization, but the major difference is I follow ONE team, not 30.

You can believe who you like, but I'll certainly start to take offense when you start to assume BA is the only people out there who get a consensus view. I respect the guys that put to together the BA lists because they have been doing this a long time, but I think you over estimate the amount of people who they talk. It would be impossible for BA to talk to as many people as I talk to about most of Orioles prospects because they have to cover the entire MLB.

Thanks for questioning my ability to project though. :rolleyestf:

I'm not trying to argue against your prospect evaluating, or pump up BA as the end-all-be-all, but I want to make sure we don't go overboard with the bolded above.

I don't know how many people you talk to, Tony, but I don't feel comfortable writing off that BA can keep pace as impossible. Saying that they have to cover the entire MLB can be misleading as it's not the same guy contacting all the scouts and organizations. The research for the Prospect Handbook gets split up among the entire staff so that each staff member might have anywhere from just a couple organizations to write about to a larger handfull. IIRC, Jim Callis had the most teams this year with about 7. Taking into consideration that this is what they do full-time, its possible that their contact list pertaining to Orioles prospects would rival yours. Maybe the biggest difference is that their list of contacts have less O's organizational contacts and more scouts who cover the league's our guys play in. That would fit with how they try to show more of an industry consensus than ownership bias.

I'm not saying things stand one way or another, I'm just saying that we don't know and it's possible things are different than we might assume at first blush.

EDIT: FWIW, I agree that Angle is a better prospect than Hudson. I didn't even have Hudson in my personal top 30.

[LookinUp]

Ok, I'm convinced now. Tony underrates Kyle Hudson and Brett Jacobson.

Anything else going on in this thread? ;)

[Tony-OH]

I'm not trying to argue against your prospect evaluating, or pump up BA as the end-all-be-all, but I want to make sure we don't go overboard with the bolded above.

I don't know how many people you talk to, Tony, but I don't feel comfortable writing off that BA can keep pace as impossible. Saying that they have to cover the entire MLB can be misleading as it's not the same guy contacting all the scouts and organizations. The research for the Prospect Handbook gets split up among the entire staff so that each staff member might have anywhere from just a couple organizations to write about to a larger handfull. IIRC, Jim Callis had the most teams this year with about 7. Taking into consideration that this is what they do full-time, its possible that their contact list pertaining to Orioles prospects would rival yours. Maybe the biggest difference is that their list of contacts have less O's organizational contacts and more scouts who cover the league's our guys play in. That would fit with how they try to show more of an industry consensus than ownership bias.

I'm not saying things stand one way or another, I'm just saying that we don't know and it's possible things are different than we might assume at first blush.

EDIT: FWIW, I agree that Angle is a better prospect than Hudson. I didn't even have Hudson in my personal top 30.

I certainly didn't mean to disavow anything BA puts out. I know these guys do their homework and they do a good job, but I cover one organization all season long. I follow these guys in boxscores everyday, I have conversations with multiple scouts in and out of the organization throughout the year, I try to see them as much as possible, and I talk to many of the organizations managers, coaches, and instructors as well.

Perhaps BA does this as well, but considering these guys also cover college and high school kids as well as multiple organizations each, I just find it hard to believe they have as accurate a picture of some of these guys.

Another thing that has me scratching my head a bit is when I see guys like Jacobson, Adams, and Rowell still on a top 30 list. I start thinking, well, maybe they are still thinking their tools will suddenly start to work. But then i see them put Eddie Gamboa on the list. Would anyone really take a 25-year old AA pitcher over a kid like Beal or Wirsch?

Also, I love reading through BA's Prospect Handbook, especially the other organizations because I just don't have time to follow them. However, knowing what I've read about some of the Orioles pitching prospects in the past, they tend to exaggerate velocity, mostly because they have to get most of their velocity readings from the organization. Hell, I know for a fact that scouts and player personnel exaggerate velocity readings at times, because it's easier to say he throws 90-94 when he may touch 94 once a game but sits 90-91.

Either way, everyone has their own thoughts on why they like a guy or don't like a guy. I try to be very upfront and back my scouting and conversations up with stats.

Keith Law is much more technical then I am because he has a formal scouting background, and for that, I respect his opinions greatly. That doesn't mean I'm always going to agree with him and that's ok. Same with BA, I'm not knocking them at all, I only get upset when people start assuming they are the only ones who use a consensus to reach their conclusions.

[Frobby]

Tony, two questions for you:

1. On the scouts' 80-point scale, if Hudson and Avery are 80's as to speed, what is Angle?

2. How would Angle compare defensively with a good major league CF? I know he's currently considered the best defensive CF in our minor league system, but how would he compare if judged against Jones and Pie?

[Tony-OH]

Tony, two questions for you:

1. On the scouts' 80-point scale, if Hudson and Avery are 80's as to speed, what is Angle?

2. How would Angle compare defensively with a good major league CF? I know he's currently considered the best defensive CF in our minor league system, but how would he compare if judged against Jones and Pie?

For me Angle is a 60, but I haven't timed his home to 1st time. I can find out for sure though from a scout who did last year. As for your second question, I'd probably put him closer to Pie in center field. Everyone I talk to raves about Angle's defense in center and in the games I saw he showed me good routes and a solid center fielder's arm.

The only question I have is whether Angle can handle good major league fastballs on a consistent basis. He still can be tied up at times with a good fastball inside but he's made some adjustments that has helped.

I still say he's going to end up a 4th outfielder, but if guys like Pierre have started, I wouldn't say it's outlandish if Angle doesn't find a team that will start him in center one day.

I'm bullish in guys who have baseball instincts, good plate discipline and can squared a ball up when hitting, even if there's not a ton of power (or any power) in there.

[allstar1579]

I certainly didn't mean to disavow anything BA puts out. I know these guys do their homework and they do a good job, but I cover one organization all season long. I follow these guys in boxscores everyday, I have conversations with multiple scouts in and out of the organization throughout the year, I try to see them as much as possible, and I talk to many of the organizations managers, coaches, and instructors as well.

Perhaps BA does this as well, but considering these guys also cover college and high school kids as well as multiple organizations each, I just find it hard to believe they have as accurate a picture of some of these guys.

Another thing that has me scratching my head a bit is when I see guys like Jacobson, Adams, and Rowell still on a top 30 list. I start thinking, well, maybe they are still thinking their tools will suddenly start to work. But then i see them put Eddie Gamboa on the list. Would anyone really take a 25-year old AA pitcher over a kid like Beal or Wirsch?

Also, I love reading through BA's Prospect Handbook, especially the other organizations because I just don't have time to follow them. However, knowing what I've read about some of the Orioles pitching prospects in the past, they tend to exaggerate velocity, mostly because they have to get most of their velocity readings from the organization. Hell, I know for a fact that scouts and player personnel exaggerate velocity readings at times, because it's easier to say he throws 90-94 when he may touch 94 once a game but sits 90-91.

Either way, everyone has their own thoughts on why they like a guy or don't like a guy. I try to be very upfront and back my scouting and conversations up with stats.

Keith Law is much more technical then I am because he has a formal scouting background, and for that, I respect his opinions greatly. That doesn't mean I'm always going to agree with him and that's ok. Same with BA, I'm not knocking them at all, I only get upset when people start assuming they are the only ones who use a consensus to reach their conclusions.

This does help them in some senses too, because those kids they are seeing as amateurs are the same kids they are rating in the minors, so they have seen them longer and have more of a baseline to use. This might be where some of the discrepancies in rankings show up through all the different outlets. Some have seen them a certain way, and seen improvements, some have seen potential they have yet to see reached. There is never going to be perfect consensus but I know some, like Stotle and I believe in the more views and opinions on guys, the better.

[RZNJ]

Well, you answered your first question. He's not "supposedly" an 80 runner on a 20-80 scale. The scale exists, and that's where Hudson resides on it.

The second point isn't what I'm saying at all. The point was clearly that Hudson is considered an exceptional athlete while Angle is not.


I think the whole discussion revovles around baseball performance versus tools and in this case there is really only one tool we are talking about because it appears as though that's all Hudson has. Is that one tool enough to put him ahead of a player who seems like a similar player who has demonstrated that he's better at just about every baseball skill. Right now, Angle is considered better defensively, has a better arm, has been a better basestealer, shown a better walk/strikeout ratio, and more pop in his bat. Is there anything else left? If Hudson had Angles instincts in CF and on the bases he might be pretty good. Do baseball players learn instincts? Could Hudson turn out to be better than Angle? Sure, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Tony-OH]

This does help them in some senses too, because those kids they are seeing as amateurs are the same kids they are rating in the minors, so they have seen them longer and have more of a baseline to use. This might be where some of the discrepancies in rankings show up through all the different outlets. Some have seen them a certain way, and seen improvements, some have seen potential they have yet to see reached. There is never going to be perfect consensus but I know some, like Stotle and I believe in the more views and opinions on guys, the better.

Guess what, it's not just you and Stotle that believe that. :rolleyestf:

In fact, it's exactly what I just said so I don't understand this "point" at all. As for seeing a guy in college or high school, that doesn't mean anything two or three years into their pro career.

[allstar1579]

Guess what, it's not just you and Stotle that believe that. :rolleyestf:

In fact, it's exactly what I just said so I don't understand this "point" at all. As for seeing a guy in college or high school, that doesn't mean anything two or three years into their pro career.

Did I say that just Stotle and I believe that? I don't know why you feel the need to pick a fight. My point was that you have more data to make an assessment on someone when you have watched them develop for a longer time, you can see changes and adjustments that have been made. A larger sample size is always a good thing.

[Ruzious]

Just fwiw, I think Hudson and Angle are startlingly similar. They both did great in 3 years in the Big 10 with no power at the same ages. They both have shown the ability in the minors to get on base and steal bases. They're both a year or 2 older than you'd like at their level of development - to be a prospect that you'd depend on. They're both CFers. I'd give Hudson a slight edge for the unknown in his future development. We've seen Angle's numbers go down a little bit as he's progressed, and we don't know... if Hudson's will do the same. And he's a bit bigger (that's not saying much), so there's more hope he can get stronger.

[jerios55]

Well, as soon as high jumping becomes an important part of baseball, Hudson should be great. Maybe he'll hurdle a CF fence on his way to making a catch. :D

Or jumping over Wieters at home plate (scrimmage of course) :D He'd need to be near his best.

[Tony-OH]

Just fwiw, I think Hudson and Angle are startlingly similar. They both did great in 3 years in the Big 10 with no power at the same ages. They both have shown the ability in the minors to get on base and steal bases. They're both a year or 2 older than you'd like at their level of development - to be a prospect that you'd depend on. They're both CFers. I'd give Hudson a slight edge for the unknown in his future development. We've seen Angle's numbers go down a little bit as he's progressed, and we don't know... if Hudson's will do the same. And he's a bit bigger (that's not saying much), so there's more hope he can get stronger.

Kyle Hudson career slash .277/.366/.305/.672
Matt Angle career slash .292/.388/.361/.749

Kyle Hudson stolen base 38 SB to 19 CS for a 66.7% success rate
Matt Angle stolen base 113 SB to 27 CS for a 80.7% success rate

Angle is a much better defensive outfielder with better routes, jumps and a better arm. Hudson has also only played 34 games in center in his career.

I think you and I have a different view of being "startlingly similar."