+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1. #1
    skanar is offline Plus Member Since 10/12 Major League Starter Reputation
    Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,587

    HHP: Prospect Evaluation of Michael Almanzar

    There's been a great deal of discussion over Michael Almanzar, and I figured he's be a great case study to use the prospect research I've done over the past year. I've written about this before, and I'm not going to write all the details over again - basically, I've used 15 years of data from every prospect in various minor leagues to generate a set of formulas that give a prospect's chance to (1) make the major leagues; (2) have some success while there (defined as >1600 PA and >1 WAR over a career); and (3) be a star (>14 WAR). All stars are also successes.

    First, I use a player's OPS, age/league, and K% to determine whether they have a realistic shot or not - a division between real prospects and organizational players. A few org. players go on to good careers, but very few: on the order of 0.5%. Then, the three-point breakdown is calculated from OPS only - I'd like to include K% in the calculation but haven't worked out the math yet. OK, on to Almanzar.

    First, a word about defense. Almanzar has played almost exclusively 3B through the minors. I'm not a scout so others will have to comment on whether his defense there is acceptable. I just want to note that my percentages do not take defense into account, so those with good defense at premium positions (SS, CF, C) should be given a bump and those with poor defense at other positions should be docked. I can't quantify this effect so far.

    Almanzar was an international signing and began his career at a very young age. He played a partial season at age 17 in the South Atlantic League (level of Delmarva), which is extremely young for that level. He hit only .552, with less than 150 PA. Only 2 prospects have ever passed that threshold at 17/SAL: Carlos Fermin, who never made the majors, and Adrian Beltre.

    His age-18 season was split between the NYPL (Aberdeen level) and SAL. He was young for both but hit well at neither (.590 NYPL, .540 SAL). However, again, he was young enough that this poor performance did not preclude his prospect status. Nobody has hit that poor and become successful, but there are relatively few other players who have been this young at these levels, and players that young have been very good overall.

    He stayed at the SAL for age 19. Age 19 is STILL on the young side for the SAL, and for me a standard age for good prospects. Those who hit well at that age often become good MLB players; weaker hitters occasionally do as well. Almanzar his .670, which is near the middle of the pack, on the lower side. His profile at this point was very similar to that of a current Orioles prospect: Adrian Marin, though Marin gets a boost from playing SS reasonably well.

    Age 20 was a disaster for Almanzar. He split it between the SAL and the Carolina LEague, and hit extremely poorly at both levels (.578 / .469). In fact, he hit so poorly that I would have dropped him as a prospect at that point and written him off as an organizational player. But he spent age 21 in the CARL (no longer very young, but still quite an acceptable age for the league) and redeemed himself, hitting .812, and at age 22 in the Eastern League he has a similar result (.760 OPS).

    Here's a summary table of the chances of success based on that history of performance. The * results are based on a limited history of past prospects, and will have much higher uncertainty.

    Code:
    Age  League  %Maj  %Succ  %Star
    18   NYPL*   29.4  17.6   11.8      
    18   SAL*    40.2  30.1   19.0
    19   SAL     47.9  16.3    7.9
    20   SAL            0.5    (org. player level)
    20   CARL           0.5    (org. player level)
    21   CARL    57.3  26.9    4.9
    22   EL      59.2  26.2   10.2
    Up to age 20, Almanzar looks like a classic busted prospect. His early struggles were mitigated by his extreme youth but as he got older and moved up in level he failed to adjust to more advanced pitching. But then he somehow got himself together and had two good (though not great) years in the mid-minors.

    Unfortunately, one major current problem of my prospect system is the inability to combine multiple predictions for the same prospect into a single current number. Should one year as an org player disqualify someone completely? How heavily should recent performance be weighted vs past performance? Should we look only at the most recent season? I don't know (yet).

    Right now, Almanzar looks like a decent prospect, one who has the chance to be a MLB contributor with an outside chance to be a star. He's had two reasonable seasons in the upper minors, and (very good) players with similar age/league seasons include Jorge Posada, Carlos Beltran, and Angel Pagan. Less spectacular examples include Gregg Zaun, Brook Fordyce, and Nate McLouth. Perhaps the best two comps are two defensively challenged outfielders: Jody Gerut and Ryan Langerhans. Nobody would suggest they were stars, but they were useful players for several years.

    If he were a normal prospect, not a rule-5 pick, I'd rate him as the 2nd-best position player in the Orioles system, behind Jon Schoop and just ahead of Ohlman and Sisco. That speaks more to the Orioles' weakness in positional prospects than Almanzar's strength. Those who wanted to dock him for his position and defensive limitations might put him behind Ohlman, Sisco, and maybe even Marin. And of course I have no data on how his Rule 5 status will affect things or whether he can contribute meaningfully THIS year - the chances are whether he will ever prove a useful player over his entire baseball career.

    Almanzar wouldn't be a bad pickup as a secondary piece in a trade, or to add some positional depth in the system - he definitely has a real shot. But without the rule 5, he'd probably be spending this year in AAA, facing good pitchers and proving himself (or not). I doubt he'll contribute much to the Orioles this year. Is adding him to the system worth the loss of the roster spot? I'm leaning no, but I don't think it's an open-and-shut decision.


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    5,815
    Good stuff, thanks for posting. Mods should move to Almanzar thread.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3
    Ven6's Avatar
    Ven6 is offline Plus Member Since 01/09 Major Leagues Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Mill Valley, CA
    Posts
    939
    Wonderful insight and analysis. I have loved your series on prospect success rates. Rep.

    One of the key questions we have to ask when considering carrying Almanzar all year is this: what would we be getting out of that 4th bench spot without him, and what is the delta in performance.

    Then, assuming the difference in performance is insignificant (especially when considering the limited number of ABs for a RH bench player), we have to ask what is the cost in terms of other players of keeping him?

    Assuming Pearce, Clevenger and a utility infielder, carrying Almanzar means Delmon Young goes to AAA (until his opt-out at least) and Reimold is exposed to waivers. With his hefty price tag (a million) and invisible spring, he just might get through.

    I'm leaning toward keeping him (and maybe even delaying the real decision with a DL stint).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Baltimore, MD
    Posts
    6,399
    Fabulous post and great stats. Rep to you, my man.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    St. Michaels
    Posts
    3,856
    Quote Originally Posted by Ven6 View Post
    Wonderful insight and analysis. I have loved your series on prospect success rates. Rep.

    One of the key questions we have to ask when considering carrying Almanzar all year is this: what would we be getting out of that 4th bench spot without him, and what is the delta in performance.

    Then, assuming the difference in performance is insignificant (especially when considering the limited number of ABs for a RH bench player), we have to ask what is the cost in terms of other players of keeping him?

    Assuming Pearce, Clevenger and a utility infielder, carrying Almanzar means Delmon Young goes to AAA (until his opt-out at least) and Reimold is exposed to waivers. With his hefty price tag (a million) and invisible spring, he just might get through.

    I'm leaning toward keeping him (and maybe even delaying the real decision with a DL stint).
    If Almanzar can hit for some power off the bench he could replace Reimold and/or Young. That's how I see him sticking. Its kind of a long shot, but crazy things happen so you never know.

  6. #6
    JayThomas is offline Plus Member since 04/11 Major League Starter Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,815
    Yep, great stuff Skanar. I would love to keep him. It just seems harder to keep him in the 25th spot than it was with Flaherty and McFarland. Flaherty was at least a glove that had value in a utility role, as well as a LH bat off the bench. McFarland ate up garbage innings for 5 months (which has real value in itself) and then pitched meanful innings in September. I don't see Almanzar being able to add value like those 2 did. I don't see how he can be a useful pinch hitter - it's the usual catch-22; without regular at-bats how can his bat develop or even maintain itself? He clearly doesn't add value as a glove. He's not going to see regular at-bats as a DH unless you're talking about keeping him INSTEAD of Pearce/Young/Reimold. I don't see that happening.

    So they could stash him in the 25-spot, but it will be harder than in the past 2 years just because he will provide less value from that spot. Then of course there's the issue of losing other assets in order to keep him, which wasn't an issue either of the past 2 years, and there's the issue that we are in a more competitive position this year to go for the gold.

    I hope we can work out a trade to allow us to send him down. If Boston won't do something straight up maybe we can get a third team involved.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Hung on for the ride.
    Posts
    59,424
    Quote Originally Posted by JayThomas View Post
    Yep, great stuff Skanar. I would love to keep him. It just seems harder to keep him in the 25th spot than it was with Flaherty and McFarland. Flaherty was at least a glove that had value in a utility role, as well as a LH bat off the bench. McFarland ate up garbage innings for 5 months (which has real value in itself) and then pitched meanful innings in September. I don't see Almanzar being able to add value like those 2 did. I don't see how he can be a useful pinch hitter - it's the usual catch-22; without regular at-bats how can his bat develop or even maintain itself? He clearly doesn't add value as a glove. He's not going to see regular at-bats as a DH unless you're talking about keeping him INSTEAD of Pearce/Young/Reimold. I don't see that happening.

    So they could stash him in the 25-spot, but it will be harder than in the past 2 years just because he will provide less value from that spot. Then of course there's the issue of losing other assets in order to keep him, which wasn't an issue either of the past 2 years, and there's the issue that we are in a more competitive position this year to go for the gold.

    I hope we can work out a trade to allow us to send him down. If Boston won't do something straight up maybe we can get a third team involved.
    Skanar's series has been a favorite of mine.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    9,289
    Great post Skanar, very good stuff, thanks!

    It would be nice to stash him as a prospect, but I think Buck comments the other day was pretty clear.

    He makes the roster, if he is ready to contribute at this ML level, if not, he goes back, they are not going to stash him on the 25 man roster, to just keep him.

  9. #9
    NCRaven's Avatar
    NCRaven is offline Plus Member since 11/05 All-Star Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Hampstead
    Posts
    2,719
    When De La Cruz was DFA'd, I thought there might be a match for a trade with Boston. But, I saw he cleared waivers and was outrighted to Norfolk. I still think they may try to work out a minor trade to keep him in our system. Having Schoop, Wallace, Adams, Marrero, and either Weeks or Casilla along with Almanzar down on the farm provides some pretty decent depth if we need to reach down and bring someone up for a few games or weeks during the season.

  10. #10
    JayThomas is offline Plus Member since 04/11 Major League Starter Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,815
    Quote Originally Posted by NCRaven View Post
    When De La Cruz was DFA'd, I thought there might be a match for a trade with Boston. But, I saw he cleared waivers and was outrighted to Norfolk. I still think they may try to work out a minor trade to keep him in our system. Having Schoop, Wallace, Adams, Marrero, and either Weeks or Casilla along with Almanzar down on the farm provides some pretty decent depth if we need to reach down and bring someone up for a few games or weeks during the season.
    ... and Urrutia too.

  11. #11
    NCRaven's Avatar
    NCRaven is offline Plus Member since 11/05 All-Star Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation Reputation
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Hampstead
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by JayThomas View Post
    ... and Urrutia too.
    I was focused on infielders, but very true. Not to mention Monell and Joseph behind the plate.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

OriolesHangout.com is an unofficial site and not associated with the Baltimore Orioles and part of Hangout Ventures LLC. Copyright ©2013 | Privacy Policy | Advertise with us