Manny, Harper and Trout

[CA-ORIOLE]

Ken Griffey Jr. - better in all aspects but maybe power than Harper

Yeah, Griffey and Arod were both up there.

[Stotle]

Everybody's speed can diminish. Maybe he gets big and it diminishes more rapidly like Trout's has. Right now Harper is a career plus 14 rate CF (his most played position to date and that with numeous injuries) and Trout has gone from elite in his first year to a mere plus 2 rate. From what I've seen Harper is more than capable of playing RF at an elite level now and it would not shock me if he did so this year and beyond.

I think, and have written, Harper can be a plus defender. Elite is an "80", or hall of fame/best in the game caliber. You think Harper can be the best defensive right fielder in the game, and the benchmark against which other right fielders should be judged? Aggressive.

As far as "generational talents", how can it be limited to top 5-10 players all-time in the game? The historical pool of players keeps growing -- do current generational players get bumped out in your system? At what point can a generational talent rank behind 10 other players?

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think, and have written, Harper can be a plus defender. Elite is an "80", or hall of fame/best in the game caliber. You think Harper can be the best defensive right fielder in the game, and the benchmark against which other right fielders should be judged? Aggressive.

85% movements of Jason Heyward sort of implies he can't (and likely won't ) be a better defender than Jason Heyward. Elite to me implies among the top though. I think he has that capability, certainly in RF.

[Stotle]

85% movements of Jason Heyward sort of implies he can't (and likely won't ) be a better defender than Jason Heyward. Elite to me implies among the top though. I think he has that capability, certainly in RF.

Where are you pulling "85% movements of Jason Heyward" and what does that mean?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Where are you pulling "85% movements of Jason Heyward" and what does that mean?

In the links I provided. 85% movement of Jason Heyward and 85% power of Stanton. What do you think it means? I think it means he can move pretty damn good in the outfield.

[CA-ORIOLE]

As far as "generational talents", how can it be limited to top 5-10 players all-time in the game? The historical pool of players keeps growing -- do current generational players get bumped out in your system? At what point can a generational talent rank behind 10 other players?

A generation is typically defined as 30 years. I would consider the conversation to be modern day baseball, so post 1900 at least. Generational talent/prospect (i.e Harper) and generational player imply different things of course. The rhetoric around Harper pretty clearly seamed to have been "once in a generation" and not one of the best players in his his generation imo. Griffey and Arod are reasonable, and proabbly the only, recent comparisons. I can't think of another one beyond that. That said, prospects have become more of a business than it was pre-1980.

Generational talent/prospect (i.e Harper) and generational talent imply different things. I'd guess you could narrow best players ever to a select group of 10 players in most cases. Would everyone agree with that, maybe not, but I think most could at this point. Will that group continue to grow over the years. Sure.

[Stotle]

In the links I provided. 85% movement of Jason Heyward and 85% power of Stanton. What do you think it means? I think it means he can move pretty damn good in the outfield.

I think it is meaningless. No context or explanation including how many times the anonymous writer saw either "as a teenager". No one in the game would utilize an appraisal in that manner because it does a piss poor job of conveying anything useful.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I think it is meaningless. No context or explanation including how many times the anonymous writer saw either "as a teenager". No one in the game would utilize an appraisal in that manner because it does a piss poor job of conveying anything useful.

Mike Newman runs a scouting website. I have no idea what his credentials are. Paints a picture for me. I'm really not sure what useful information exists projecting Harper as an outfielder considering he spent so much time as a catcher and very little time in the OF in the minors.

You haven't provided much. You did admit that you thought he could be a plus defender in RF. That's fine with me. I think he's a capable of being more. We'll see what happens. Maybe that +14 rate in CF will transfer to corner OF. Maybe not.

[Stotle]

Mike Newman runs a scouting website. I have no idea what his credentials are. Paints a picture for me. I'm really not sure what useful information exists projecting Harper as an outfielder considering he spent so much time as a catcher and very little time in the OF in the minors.

You haven't provided much. You did admit that you thought he could be a plus defender in RF. That's fine with me. I think he's a capable of being more. We'll see what happens. Maybe that +14 rate in CF will transfer to corner OF. Maybe not.

Useful information is putting a grade on it and explaining his strengths and weaknesses while noting what if anything is likely to get better or worse.

I know Mike; nice enough fella. He played college ball and has been writing about scouting for like seven years or something. If Mike wrote the report best case is he saw Harper eight times in Rome. I'm guessing it was four or fewer games during that first series in Rome.

[Can_of_corn]

In general terms, generation may mean 30 years but I don't think it means that in baseball. I don't know of a baseball player whose career lasted 30 years. Was Mays a generational talent? Aaron? Koufax? That's 3 just in the 60's.

Highest I found, including minors, was 29 years.

[Frobby]

In general terms, generation may mean 30 years but I don't think it means that in baseball. I don't know of a baseball player whose career lasted 30 years. Was Mays a generational talent? Aaron? Koufax? That's 3 just in the 60's.

Exactly. This whole discussion of "generational talent" started with a reference to Mantle and Mays. They debuted the same year, so therefore you apparently can have more than one "generational talent" at one time. The definition doesn't have to be as strict as CA-ORIOLE has defined it.

In any event, I reject the whole idea that scouts can look at an 16-17 year old kid and predict exactly how good they'll be. Look where Trout was picked. Everyone knew he was a really good prospect, but nobody knew he was quite at the level he's turned out to be. If scouts thought Harper would be the best player of his generation and he turns out to be in the top 2-3, that's a pretty good evaluation if you ask me.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Useful information is putting a grade on it and explaining his strengths and weaknesses while noting what if anything is likely to get better or worse.

There is stuff you pay for and stuff for free I guess. Still not sure how much useful detailed projections of his OF play would be out there considering his background and limited Mil play. I am merely saying do not dismiss his potential as a defender. The numbers will eventually tell the story,

[CA-ORIOLE]

In general terms, generation may mean 30 years but I don't think it means that in baseball. I don't know of a baseball player whose career lasted 30 years. Was Mays a generational talent? Aaron? Koufax? That's 3 just in the 60's.

Opinions vary. Mays and Mantle were likely generational talents imo. Mays a generational player. Mantle is arguable, largely due to injuries and more rapid decline. Aaron inferior to both in terms of raw talent. Koufax is hard to say, similar to what Joe Namath was to football imo.

[Stotle]

There is stuff you pay for and stuff for free I guess. Still not sure how much useful detailed projections of his OF play would be out there considering his background and limited Mil play. I am merely saying do not miss his potential as a defender. The numbers will eventually tell the story,

I don't believe I've ever referred to Harper as anything but a potential plus defender. My issue was with throwing an "elite" label on him and using a confusing "85% of Heyward" quote as evidence of anything. Harper played outfield in college (I think he ended up logging time at five positions over the course of that seasons as a high school junior making a one-year run through an already well-stocked JuCo squad). As an amateur I went catcher --> third base --> right field as far as where I would put him defensively. Had him as a potential plus defender at all three spots. I'm sure if you go back into the archives here or elsewhere you'll me write something glowing about his outfield play his rookie year.

This all traces back to the original point, however, that Harper did not achieve his huge level of hype because of his projected outfield play. He achieved it as a power-hitting catcher that was dominating competition 2-4 years older than he starting at around age 12. He was breaking JuCo homer records with a wood bat at an age when he should have been a junior in high school. He was drafted a year before he would have normally been eligible as a high schooler and still made his major league debut after like a year and a half's worth of minor league games. He wasn't solely a product of a hype-driven age of media -- he was as deserving of hype as any athlete can be.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Exactly. This whole discussion of "generational talent" started with a reference to Mantle and Mays. They debuted the same year, so therefore you apparently can have more than one "generational talent" at one time. The definition doesn't have to be as strict as CA-ORIOLE has defined it.

In any event, I reject the whole idea that scouts can look at an 16-17 year old kid and predict exactly how good they'll be. Look where Trout was picked. Everyone knew he was a really good prospect, but nobody knew he was quite at the level he's turned out to be. If scouts thought Harper would be the best player of his generation and he turns out to be in the top 2-3, that's a pretty good evaluation if you ask me.

You can have any opinion you want. I merely cited the pretty clear rhetoric associated with Harper, reserved only for the likes of Griffey d Arod that I can recall. There is pretty clear distinguishment between "once in a generation talent" (read the reference) and "one of the best in his generation" imo, even if its a rhetorical argument.