Baseball Prospectus Top 101: Bundy #4, Gausman #13, Schoop #80

[waroriole]

Shrug. 43 spots (37-80) isn't all that great, all things considered. Castellanos' numbers are dinged-up some due to a terrible August that included a very low BABIP (like, close to .200 I think). He tired some, was a little unlucky, etc. Not excusing numbers, but adding some further context.

I think he's referring to the gap in the rankings of other publications. BP seems to have the smallest gap between the two.

[Stotle]

I think he's referring to the gap in the rankings of other publications. BP seems to have the smallest gap between the two.

Ah. Well, BP has the best list, so everyone should be happy about that.

[waroriole]

Ah. Well, BP has the best list, so everyone should be happy about that.

I don't know, one of the others had EdRod on the Top 100 too.

[Stotle]

I don't know, one of the others had EdRod on the Top 100 too.

Yeah, but that was just pandering...

[hoosiers]

Shrug. 43 spots (37-80) isn't all that great, all things considered. Castellanos' numbers are dinged-up some due to a terrible August that included a very low BABIP (like, close to .200 I think). He tired some, was a little unlucky, etc. Not excusing numbers, but adding some further context.

Couple thoughts:

Wasn't Schoop dinged up to start last season? Schoops numbers improved over the course of the year especially in the BB/K numbers between April - June v July - Aug.

Isn't the K rate for Castellanos a bit of a red flag? He is striking out in one in every three or so PAs.

Can you sync the "superior pitch recognition" skills of Castellanos with his high K rate? Not used to seeing this kind of description associated with this kind of K rate.

Does the AFL performance of Schoop v Castellanos carry ANY weight? They were facing the same pitchers from the same lineup.

I do trust the scouts' opinions first, really, truly, I do. Always have, but the raw stats at comparative ages and levels comfortably favor Schoop.

[Stotle]

Couple thoughts:

Wasn't Schoop dinged up to start last season? Schoops numbers improved over the course of the year especially in the BB/K numbers between April - June v July - Aug.

Isn't the K rate for Castellanos a bit of a red flag? He is striking out in one in every three or so PAs.

Can you sync the "superior pitch recognition" skills of Castellanos with his high K rate? Not used to seeing this kind of description associated with this kind of K rate.

Does the AFL performance of Schoop v Castellanos carry ANY weight? They were facing the same pitchers from the same lineup.

I do trust the scouts' opinions first, really, truly, I do. Always have, but the raw stats at comparative ages and levels comfortably favor Schoop.

The numbers I have seen show the following Krates at Double-A:

vs LHP: 74 PA, 9.5% (Schoop ~15%)

vs RHP: 263 PA, 25.9% (Schoop ~20%)

Total 2012:

vs LHP: 143 PA, ~14% (Schoop ~15%)

vs RHP: 437 PA, ~22% (Schoop ~20%)

By month:

June:93 PA, ~18%

July: 112 PA, ~22%

August: 132 PA, ~25%

So there is some concern, but as I said you also had someone who ran into a little bad luck and was probably pressing a little too hard as the season wore on.

Re: AFL stats, it's just an incredibly small sample size. I think if you speak to folks who watched both play, the consensus would be that Castellanos hits the ball harder more consistently. Much of that is due to his ability to pick out which pitches to attack. Pitch recognition is a separate skill from overall approach (though it plays into your ability to formulate an overall approach). Finally, we have more data than just Double-A, and all of that data (scouting and statistical) points to Castellanos excelling, offensively.

I do think some prospecting media folks missed the boat on the strides Schoop was making throughout the year.

[hoosiers]

I understand scouts say Castellanos hits the ball consistently harder, but during the time both were in AA from June 1 or early June until the end of the season, covering approx 320-350 PAs or so for each, Schoop had more xbh - not that this is the definition of hitting the ball harder. In the AFL, Schoop had 6 xbhs with 16 BBs in approx 80 PAs, while Castellanos had 7 xbh and approx 30 Ks in 110 PAs.

Also, while others more familiar will have to comment on the hitting/pitching favors in the parks involved, Castellanos has a rather extreme home/road split in AA with a road OPS of .585 with 8 BBs and 51 Ks. He made up for this with a strong home OPS. Schoop's road OPS in AA for the season was .650. Schoop's K rate improved steadily each month from 1:3 to near 1:2 to nearly 1:1 in August.

It is clear that Castellanos was undone by a horrible August - not sure of his team's home/road splits in that month.

As I said, it will be interesting to see Castellanos work to cut down on his Ks and see his other stats surge as he matures and whether Schoop can stay close.

[LookinUp]

Stats are not the appropriate measure for Cole at this point. It might be they tell us something eventually, but the body, attitude, arm and pure stuff warrants his placement.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the exact same position people were taking when Bauer was outpitching him in college? Have his stats been lagging his stuff for the last 4ish years? At what point do they become the appropriate measure?

[Stotle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this the exact same position people were taking when Bauer was outpitching him in college? Have his stats been lagging his stuff for the last 4ish years? At what point do they become the appropriate measure?

Is this an honest question? Baseball is a different game at the collegiate and minor league level than it is at the Major League level. No one evaluating these players for MLB organizations care which arms make the best collegiate or minor league starters. This is probably why Cole was drafted higher than Bauer, paid more than Bauer, and ranks higher than Bauer on every reputable prospect list I've seen.

The "4ish years" is silly regardless. Would you like me to tick through the stats with you?

[LookinUp]

Is this an honest question? Baseball is a different game at the collegiate and minor league level than it is at the Major League level. No one evaluating these players for MLB organizations care which arms make the best collegiate or minor league starters. This is probably why Cole was drafted higher than Bauer, paid more than Bauer, and ranks higher than Bauer on every reputable prospect list I've seen.

The "4ish years" is silly regardless. Would you like me to tick through the stats with you?

Yes, it was a serious question. I am going by memory, but I think I recall hearing the same scouting evaluation as a basis for him being the #1 pick, so it struck me that people are still talking about his stats not matching his stuff. He was the guy I wanted the O's to get, for what it's worth, and I'm not questioning whether his stuff is good enough to be an ace. I'm wondering if we're overlooking a relative lack of location/pitchability/whatever you want to call it because his stuff is so off the charts good.

[Stotle]

Yes, it was a serious question. I am going by memory, but I think I recall hearing the same scouting evaluation as a basis for him being the #1 pick, so it struck me that people are still talking about his stats not matching his stuff. He was the guy I wanted the O's to get, for what it's worth, and I'm not questioning whether his stuff is good enough to be an ace. I'm wondering if we're overlooking a relative lack of location/pitchability/whatever you want to call it because his stuff is so off the charts good.

You heard it last year because Bauer had a great year and Cole's ERA wasn't sparkling (mostly due to a couple of starts). I don't know where you got the "4ish years". Here are Cole's numbers

UCLA

FR - 11.01 SO/9, 1.12 WHIP, 0.37 BB/SO

SO - 11.20 SO/9, 1.17 WHIP, 0.34 BB/SO

JR - 9.37 SO/9, 1.11 WHIP, 0.20 BB/SO

MILB (last year was only year)

A - 9.27 SO/9, 1.10 WHIP, 0.30 BB/SO

AA - 9.15 SO/9, 1.31 WHIP, 0.38 BB/SO

AAA - 10.50 SO/9, 1.17 WHIP, 0.14 BB/SO (only one start)

I don't see how these stats call anything negative into question. I understand why Bauer's were considered so eye popping, but to get swept up in those stats is to ignore how he accrued them (which was largely exploiting undisciplined college hitters with gimmicky stuff).

As for Bundy vs Cole, Cole is a year/level ahead of Bundy and has performed largely on par with Bundy in that respect. It's an uneven comparison since other factors come into play, but:

Bundy (HiA)/Cole (AA)

IP - 57/59

SO/9 - 10.42/11.20

BB/SO - 0.27/0.34

WHIP - 1.16/1.17

This was essentially a toss-up for me, with Cole winning out on stuff like size, angles, track record, durability (track record perspective), and the like.

Again, I'm not sure what in Cole's history implies he's anything but a highly effective and promising arm.

[LookinUp]

Fair enough. Given those stats, can I now pick a fight with you for saying that "Stats are not the appropriate measure for Cole at this point?"

I mean, those stats do paint a pretty damn good picture too, but I get your point that there's more to the projection than stats alone. Your post misled me, and that makes me sad.

[Stotle]

Fair enough. Given those stats, can I now pick a fight with you for saying that "Stats are not the appropriate measure for Cole at this point?"

I mean, those stats do paint a pretty damn good picture too, but I get your point that there's more to the projection than stats alone. Your post misled me, and that makes me sad.

Actually, I'd still argue his stats aren't an accurate measure for how nasty his stuff actually is.

[baltfan]

You heard it last year because Bauer had a great year and Cole's ERA wasn't sparkling (mostly due to a couple of starts). I don't know where you got the "4ish years". Here are Cole's numbers

UCLA

FR - 11.01 SO/9, 1.12 WHIP, 0.37 BB/SO

SO - 11.20 SO/9, 1.17 WHIP, 0.34 BB/SO

JR - 9.37 SO/9, 1.11 WHIP, 0.20 BB/SO

MILB (last year was only year)

A - 9.27 SO/9, 1.10 WHIP, 0.30 BB/SO

AA - 9.15 SO/9, 1.31 WHIP, 0.38 BB/SO

AAA - 10.50 SO/9, 1.17 WHIP, 0.14 BB/SO (only one start)

I don't see how these stats call anything negative into question. I understand why Bauer's were considered so eye popping, but to get swept up in those stats is to ignore how he accrued them (which was largely exploiting undisciplined college hitters with gimmicky stuff).

As for Bundy vs Cole, Cole is a year/level ahead of Bundy and has performed largely on par with Bundy in that respect. It's an uneven comparison since other factors come into play, but:

Bundy (HiA)/Cole (AA)

IP - 57/59

SO/9 - 10.42/11.20

BB/SO - 0.27/0.34

WHIP - 1.16/1.17

This was essentially a toss-up for me, with Cole winning out on stuff like size, angles, track record, durability (track record perspective), and the like.

Again, I'm not sure what in Cole's history implies he's anything but a highly effective and promising arm.

Cole's WHIP was 1.30 at AA. You mistakenly listed his AAA WHIP. His K/9 was 9.2 not 11.2. Despite all of this,I can see how one might rate him above Bundy.

[Stotle]

Cole's WHIP was 1.30 at AA. You mistakenly listed his AAA WHIP. His K/9 was 9.2 not 11.2. Despite all of this,I can see how one might rate him above Bundy.

You are correct -- I mistakenly looked at his soph. year stats from UCLA (second in list) instead of the minor league section of spread sheet. Apologies -- that's a bad mistake considering the topic.

Here's Bundy (HiA)/Cole (AA) correct this time

IP - 57/59

SO/9 - 10.42/9.15

BB/SO - 0.27/0.38

WHIP - 1.16/1.31