Mancini a finalist for Minor League Player of the Year

[eb45]

The thing about Mancini is that this kind of performance was very much within the realm of possibility when he was drafted. It's not at all unheard of for an unheralded eighth-round pick to put up world-beating numbers in Double-A. His numbers are going to make people ask some questions, but I don't think they're going to change a lot of minds on their own. Like I said before, prospect lists are always going to take the Aaron Judge type over the Mancini type. I wouldn't call him a lock for any national prospect list, unless someone is going to a top 300 or something. That obviously doesn't mean he's not going to be a successful major leaguer, but let's also remember that he doesn't have plus power, which is kind of a big deal when you're talking first base prospects. And batting average is one of the least likely stats to translate from minors to majors.

I feel like I should point out that I like Mancini a lot, and I'm encouraged by the fact that he's made major adjustments to his swing mechanics and that they seem to be paying off. But I also think it's important to recognize that there are valid arguments against his prospect status. But I'd also like to remind everyone that prospect status means exactly nothing in terms of winning baseball games.

[Frobby]

Yes, I guess I am mixing Player of the Year and Top Prospect. You have a point. But Mancini being mentioned as one of the top players in the minors is quite a jump from where he started the year. Interesting to see what his ceiling may be. I guess we will have to wait to see how he comes out on the prospect lists.

I think Mancini probably deserves to be in the Orioles top 5 based off his performance this year. Among the hitters, I think I'd still put Sisco and Reyes ahead of Mancini. I don't think you'll see Mancini on national top 100 lists, just based on a few offhand comments I've read from the national pundits. But those lists aren't the be all and end all. There's certainly a decent possibility that Mancini turns out to be a solid major league player.

[csgordos]

He just went yard. 400 feet to deep Left. Looked quick to the ball. Was nice enough to take a picture with my son today. K'd his first AB. Has dug out a couple of short hopped throws tonight at first.

[eb45]

I don't think he's a 25-HR-per-year guy, no. Plus power is generally considered 25-28. I think Mancini's power tool grades out as average, maybe a tick above (about 17 or 18 HR per year). I think that's about as bullish as it's fair to be at this juncture.

[hoosiers]

Mancini reaches a minor milestone tonight with 7 BBs against 6 Ks in his last 10. Whether he is making adjustments and taking walks or if he is being pitched around, I don't know, but he has improved his walk rate dramatically as the season ends. The higher BBs and the power have turned August into his best month at Bowie with an obp north of .400 and an ops north of 1.000. Mancini is having an incredible year statistically and one has to think it has also similarly improved his prospect status. He should be in a lot of discussions for regarding why guys with lesser stats are considered better prospects, but at least he has put himself in those discussions. A great find for our scouting department.

[Can_of_corn]

Mancini reaches a minor milestone tonight with 7 BBs against 6 Ks in his last 10. Whether he is making adjustments and taking walks or if he is being pitched around, I don't know, but he has improved his walk rate dramatically as the season ends. The higher BBs and the power have turned August into his best month at Bowie with an obp north of .400 and an ops north of 1.000. Mancini is having an incredible year statistically and one has to think it has also similarly improved his prospect status. He should be in a lot of discussions for regarding why guys with lesser stats are considered better prospects, but at least he has put himself in those discussions. A great find for our scouting department.

Or maybe it is a win for the development team?

Or better yet, both.

[bobmc]

Or maybe it is a win for the development team?

Or better yet, both.

And ND grad Stotle has an alumnus smile on his face! :clap3: Win win!

[Number5]

The thing about Mancini is that this kind of performance was very much within the realm of possibility when he was drafted. It's not at all unheard of for an unheralded eighth-round pick to put up world-beating numbers in Double-A. His numbers are going to make people ask some questions, but I don't think they're going to change a lot of minds on their own. Like I said before, prospect lists are always going to take the Aaron Judge type over the Mancini type. I wouldn't call him a lock for any national prospect list, unless someone is going to a top 300 or something. That obviously doesn't mean he's not going to be a successful major leaguer, but let's also remember that he doesn't have plus power, which is kind of a big deal when you're talking first base prospects. And batting average is one of the least likely stats to translate from minors to majors.

I feel like I should point out that I like Mancini a lot, and I'm encouraged by the fact that he's made major adjustments to his swing mechanics and that they seem to be paying off. But I also think it's important to recognize that there are valid arguments against his prospect status. But I'd also like to remind everyone that prospect status means exactly nothing in terms of winning baseball games.

Sometimes the prospect lists are just wrong. Think Paul Goldschmidt, another 8th round pick. I remember I was looking at him in the minor league portion of my deep NL-only fantasy league in 2011. Had 35 HRs, 108 RBI, and a .314/.384/.606/.990 slash line in high-A in 2010 after a similar season in rookie ball in 2009. None of the "expert" prospect lists had him anywhere to be found.

Here is what BA had:

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/top-100-prospects/2011/2611328.html

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/prospects/rankings/organization-top-10-prospects/2011/2611157.html

No Goldschmidt. They evidently felt that his huge numbers over his first two years in the minors wouldn't translate. I passed on him, mainly because of what the "experts" had, and we know how that turned out. It seems to me that scouts and prospect experts have a natural tendency to not change their mind and not admit when they are wrong. It is a natural human trait. Looking at Mancini, I think we may well have another such case. Sometimes the results have to be taken into consideration, IMO.

[eb45]

Goldschmidt changed a lot of minds in 2011 when he cut his strikeouts nearly in half while walking almost 50% more. Up until then, there was justified skepticism over a college 1B with a weird swing putting up huge numbers in the California League. I certainly remember in 2011, when he put up even bigger numbers in the Southern League, a lot of people changed their tune pretty quickly. I think it was either Jim Callis or John Manuel that described him as their biggest miss before he got called up to the bigs.

But again, Mancini isn't Goldschmidt. I've thought about that comp before, since there are some undoubted similarities, but Goldschmidt hit 35 HRs in 2010 -- California League or not, that's big power. And Goldschmidt also raked his first two years as a pro, which Mancini did not. Now, do you want to attribute his rise this season to a change in mechanics, or do you want to say he was always capable of this and it shouldn't drastically change your evaluation of him? Nobody in the scouting business cares about stats for stats' sake. It's what causes the stats that is interesting. In 2013, I saw Mancini several times and chalked him up as a non-prospect. His swing was all arms, there was a hitch in his load, he didn't get a lot of backspin on the ball, there was no barrel lag, and he had a lot of miss in his swing. Even though I had him as a non-prospect, I still thought he was capable of putting up good to very good numbers throughout the minors. Why would I change my assessment of him as a non-prospect just because he did something I already thought he was capable of?

Sometimes scouts are "wrong," but more often than not when that's the case, the player has legitimately improved to the point where their ceiling is substantially higher. But there is no way to tell that Mancini has improved just by looking at the numbers. Like it or not, this is not out of line with what he could do without being a prospect.

Here's another example to illustrate what I'm talking about. A buddy of mine is a Mets fan, and saw Jacob deGrom throughout the minors. He had him pegged as a back-end starter at best, likely a middle reliever. But then deGrom added a few ticks of velocity, and suddenly he had a vicious two-seamer that he could locate inside or outside, up or down. Was he wrong about deGrom when he was throwing 90? No, he wasn't. Because deGrom wasn't Rookie of the Year deGrom until he started throwing 94.

[Number5]

Goldschmidt changed a lot of minds in 2011 when he cut his strikeouts nearly in half while walking almost 50% more. Up until then, there was justified skepticism over a college 1B with a weird swing putting up huge numbers in the California League. I certainly remember in 2011, when he put up even bigger numbers in the Southern League, a lot of people changed their tune pretty quickly. I think it was either Jim Callis or John Manuel that described him as their biggest miss before he got called up to the bigs.

But again, Mancini isn't Goldschmidt. I've thought about that comp before, since there are some undoubted similarities, but Goldschmidt hit 35 HRs in 2010 -- California League or not, that's big power. And Goldschmidt also raked his first two years as a pro, which Mancini did not. Now, do you want to attribute his rise this season to a change in mechanics, or do you want to say he was always capable of this and it shouldn't drastically change your evaluation of him? Nobody in the scouting business cares about stats for stats' sake. It's what causes the stats that is interesting. In 2013, I saw Mancini several times and chalked him up as a non-prospect. His swing was all arms, there was a hitch in his load, he didn't get a lot of backspin on the ball, there was no barrel lag, and he had a lot of miss in his swing. Even though I had him as a non-prospect, I still thought he was capable of putting up good to very good numbers throughout the minors. Why would I change my assessment of him as a non-prospect just because he did something I already thought he was capable of?

Sometimes scouts are "wrong," but more often than not when that's the case, the player has legitimately improved to the point where their ceiling is substantially higher. But there is no way to tell that Mancini has improved just by looking at the numbers. Like it or not, this is not out of line with what he could do without being a prospect.

Here's another example to illustrate what I'm talking about. A buddy of mine is a Mets fan, and saw Jacob deGrom throughout the minors. He had him pegged as a back-end starter at best, likely a middle reliever. But then deGrom added a few ticks of velocity, and suddenly he had a vicious two-seamer that he could locate inside or outside, up or down. Was he wrong about deGrom when he was throwing 90? No, he wasn't. Because deGrom wasn't Rookie of the Year deGrom until he started throwing 94.

Sorry, but I don't see the strikeout rate difference you are stating. Certainly not half. 2011 was pretty much in line with 2009 and 2010 for strikeouts for Goldschmidt, with 2010 being slightly the highest of the three years. Bottom line is he flat out killed the ball all three years. I'm not saying Mancini is Goldschmidt, but I see a lot of similarities in the way he is rated vs. his actual production. My point is that, like most people, the experts tend to only change their minds after the horse is out of the barn and there is no alternative. Goldschmidt was in the majors hitting home runs in 2011 by the time they admitted that they missed on that one. I remember it well only because I got burned in my draft.

[MachoMachadoMan]

I'd be totally fine with Mancini not being Goldschmidt, probably the best overall first baseman in all of baseball over the last three years (Cabrera is the best hitter, but awful with the glove).

If Mancini was a solid starter who could hit 5-7 in the lineup, hit 20-25 home runs with a decent BA/OBP, I think we could all say that's a win.

[eb45]

Sorry, but I don't see the strikeout rate difference you are stating. Certainly not half. 2011 was pretty much in line with 2009 and 2010 for strikeouts for Goldschmidt, with 2010 being slightly the highest of the three years. Bottom line is he flat out killed the ball all three years. I'm not saying Mancini is Goldschmidt, but I see a lot of similarities in the way he is rated vs. his actual production. My point is that, like most people, the experts tend to only change their minds after the horse is out of the barn and there is no alternative. Goldschmidt was in the majors hitting home runs in 2011 by the time they admitted that they missed on that one. I remember it well only because I got burned in my draft.

Okay, his strikeout rate only dropped about 25 percent (napkin math had it at 42% -- never do napkin math). That's still a massive drop! And he did that while walking nearly twice as often! That's about the strongest indication of a jump in talent level you can infer from statline scouting. And 2011, you'll note, was his third year in the minors -- also known as when people came around on him, as in during the four months of that season before he made his major league debut. At the end of 2010, Goldschmidt might have needed to hit his 70th percentile outcome to be a major league regular, and his 50th percentile outcome was probably a AAAA guy/bench bat. The fact that he hit his 99th percentile outcome in 2011 doesn't invalidate that it was unlikely he'd do that before the season! Sometimes guys get better. Where did Goldschmidt rank on all the pre-2012 lists? Oh right, he was already in the majors. People changed their minds pretty quickly once he became better. You got "burned" in your fantasy draft because you didn't have a crystal ball where you could see him becoming a better player, not because the experts were wrong when they said he was unlikely to become a great player. If I roll a die and a 1 comes up, that doesn't mean there was no chance a 6 would come up, and it certainly doesn't make someone wrong for saying it was unlikely a 1 would come up.

Now, the question is, do you think Mancini has become a better player, like Goldschmidt did? Because he was a non-prospect before this season, and non-prospects are capable of putting up big minor league numbers without it affecting their prospect status. So there's two possibilities here: one, he's improved and is now a serious prospect, or two, this is a mirage and he's still got serious issues that will be exploited at higher levels. There is no third option, the "he's always been this good and the so-called experts are just late to realize it" option you seem to be insistent on. Personally, from the film I've seen, I think he's improved -- not a top 100 guy, necessarily, but certainly in the Orioles' top few. But I've talked to a couple people who have seen him live, and one of them thinks he's improved, but still doesn't want to call him a future regular, and the other didn't see much improvement at all in the areas that were always going to give him trouble: holes in his swing and a hitch in his load that will hurt him against top velocity. I think these are all valid positions to take, so I could see him winding up anywhere on a prospect list from fringe top 100 to not in the top 200. What do you think is responsible for his statistical spike this season?