Jonathan Schoop #3 Prospect

[Can_of_corn]

And what you want is depth with risk diversity. The insurance against, say, Schoop not panning out would (it seems to me) ideally be a lower-upside, lower-risk college bat, rather than a HS 2B. And in this sense, we almost get it right. Our depth/insurance for Schoop and Machado? An "older" HS bat who can't field (Adams) and a college SS who can't hit (Miclat).

Honestly, though, just having these guys in the system makes me want to extend Wieters just to have those three up the middle. (In other words, I'm making the mistake of "dreaming on" prospects.)

Every time you think about wanting to extend Wieters I want you to take a deep breath and look at this page.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIn6UNnQQrmryUesyK0wSwg&output=html

[Lucky Jim]

I like the 17-year plan better.

Predicting longevity is a fool's-gambit! (See: Roberts, Brian.)

But, yeah, we can dare to dream. And temper that expectation when Pedroia breaks down in two years and Tulowitzki starts putting up .240/.310/.390 lines with diminishing range. Ha.

[Lucky Jim]

Every time you think about wanting to extend Wieters I want you to take a deep breath and look at this page.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIn6UNnQQrmryUesyK0wSwg&output=html

I didn't exclude Wieters from my dreaming. Ahem.*

*See my post re: longevity above.

[Can_of_corn]

I didn't exclude Wieters from my dreaming. Ahem.*

*See my post re: longevity above.

I know I just think there is an important lesson to be learned there and I am not above using any available opportunity to reiterate it.

As big a fan of him as I am the O's must tread very carefully.

[GoldGlove21]

That may be. Still, none of these guys have proven themselves where it counts (imo) at AA. I just have a hard time getting too excited about guys like this until they do. I do apprecaite what everyone is saying about the age/age relative to league/skills and that a couple of them play a premium postion etc.

I am not sure what double A ball says about a players upside and abilities without a look at the entire package. A player could struggle in the majors even after destroying double A ball over 1 or 2 years. I get excited about a guy when people outside of Baltimore get excited about a guy. Even then, it is hard to get excited over a team that has some very good players and still finished 25+ games under mediocre.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I am not sure what double A ball says about a players upside and abilities without a look at the entire package. A player could struggle in the majors even after destroying double A ball over 1 or 2 years. I get excited about a guy when people outside of Baltimore get excited about a guy. Even then, it is hard to get excited over a team that has some very good players and still finished 25+ games under mediocre.

A lot of guys flame out/decline at AA. AA is the key development stage imo. Success at AA doesn't mean succcess in the ML of course, but it's a pretty good indicator. The best indicator imo. Of course you have to consider age/development etc., but if I guy develops/succeeds at AA, it really doesn't matter much to me what he did at 17-20 in A ball.

[Frobby]

A lot of guys flame out/decline at AA. AA is the key development stage imo. Success at AA doesn't mean succcess in the ML of course, but it's a pretty good indicator. The best indicator imo. Of course you have to consider age/development etc., but if I guy develops/succeeds at AA, it really doesn't matter much to me what he did at 17-20 in A ball.

I have my reservations about this, though it is something you hear a lot. It seems to me that a lot of Oriole prospects have done better in AA than they did in A ball, and that has borne very little relationship to whether they had success in AAA or the majors.

[DrungoHazewood]

A lot of guys flame out/decline at AA. AA is the key development stage imo. Success at AA doesn't mean succcess in the ML of course, but it's a pretty good indicator. The best indicator imo. Of course you have to consider age/development etc., but if I guy develops/succeeds at AA, it really doesn't matter much to me what he did at 17-20 in A ball.

I think a lot of guys flame out at a lot of different levels, and there's little evidence to support AA as the key indicator. Look at Brandon Snyder. The only time he really looked like a major league player was in AA. Josh Bell had nearly a .900 OPS and a walk every 9 PAs in AA. Joe Mahoney had a .922 OPS in AA at 23, and hardly anyone thinks he's a good prospect.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think a lot of guys flame out at a lot of different levels, and there's little evidence to support AA as the key indicator. Look at Brandon Snyder. The only time he really looked like a major league player was in AA. Josh Bell had nearly a .900 OPS and a walk every 9 PAs in AA. Joe Mahoney had a .922 OPS in AA at 23, and hardly anyone thinks he's a good prospect.

Sure, we could pick tons of guys who did well in AA and then didn't do so well in AAA/majors. I'm guessing that number is a lot less than A/A+ ball. Again it depends on age and other factors etc. I still say it's the most relevant level.

[RVAbird]

I think a lot of guys flame out at a lot of different levels, and there's little evidence to support AA as the key indicator. Look at Brandon Snyder. The only time he really looked like a major league player was in AA. Josh Bell had nearly a .900 OPS and a walk every 9 PAs in AA. Joe Mahoney had a .922 OPS in AA at 23, and hardly anyone thinks he's a good prospect.

I think the degree to which the AA-as-litmus-test holds is dependent on the skill-set of the player in question. For example, I wouldn't expect AA to be the essential proving ground for someone like Dylan Bundy. I think his two big tests will come in his first year in pro ball, as he adjusts to a full work-load over shorter rest against more consistent competition, and the Majors, where his total package (as a guy without much projection left) will finally be tested against the best in the world. I don't see any of the intermediary stops as more crucial than the others.

A player with good bat speed/athleticism but poor pitch ID could potentially be exposed at AA, but he could be exposed at AAA as well. It depends on the skill-set and experience of the player, and also on a good deal of randomness and external factors as well.

[Lucky Jim]

Sure, we good pick tons of guys who did well in AA and then didn't do so well in AAA/majors. I'm guessing that number is a lot less that A/A+ ball. Again it depends on age and other factors etc. I still say its the most relevant level.

But nothing in this post counsels ignoring data below AA. It may suggest that you weight things differently.

[DrungoHazewood]

Every time you think about wanting to extend Wieters I want you to take a deep breath and look at this page.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tIn6UNnQQrmryUesyK0wSwg&output=html

All you need is a little hyperinflation that drives the cost of bread to $23M and Mauer's contract starts looking sweet.

[CA-ORIOLE]

But nothing in this post counsels ignoring data below AA. It may suggest that you weight things differently.

My original point was about generally disregarding data below AA once a player succeeds/fails at AA. That has nothing to do with your latter point of comparing Bundy to Machado. Because a guy may fail/succeed at any level doesn't negate my original point.

[Can_of_corn]

All you need is a little hyperinflation that drives the cost of bread to $23M and Mauer's contract starts looking sweet.

I knew Bernanke was a Twins fan! It all makes sense now.

[Lucky Jim]

Until a guys shows something in AA, I tend not to get too excited about these things. Age/skills/relative performance in A ball noted. Quite frankly, this prospect list seems pretty damn depressing.

That may be. Still, none of these guys have proven themselves where it counts (imo) at AA. I just have a hard time getting too excited about guys like this until they do. I do apprecaite what everyone is saying about the age/age relative to league/skills and that a couple of them play a premium postion etc.

My original point was about generally disregarding data below AA once a player succeeds/fails at AA. That has nothing to do with your latter point of comparing Bundy to Machado. Because a guy may fail/succeed at any level doesn't negate my original point.

I don't think this is a big deal - I over-emphasized your take on sub-AA stats a bit, it seems. That said, nothing in your prior posts jibes with some post-hoc (post-AA) analysis. And I still don't see why you'd get excited by a non-consensus upside scouting report but not by solid-consensus scouting reports and pre-AA statistics. Or why you can't get excited by "pre-AA" performance but can get excited with no performance at all.