+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 11 of 11
03-24-2014 02:48 PM #1Plus Member Since 10/12 Major League Starter
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
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.
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
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.
03-24-2014 03:05 PM #2
Good stuff, thanks for posting. Mods should move to Almanzar thread.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
03-24-2014 03:08 PM #3
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).
03-24-2014 03:09 PM #4
Fabulous post and great stats. Rep to you, my man.
03-24-2014 03:15 PM #5
03-24-2014 05:59 PM #6Plus Member since 04/11 All-Star
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
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.
03-26-2014 08:50 AM #7
03-26-2014 08:54 AM #8
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.
03-26-2014 10:15 AM #9
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.
03-26-2014 10:20 AM #10Plus Member since 04/11 All-Star
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
03-26-2014 11:14 AM #11