.900 OPS hitters

[Pickles]

But to your point, yeah, he didn't even debut professionally until he was 24.  Rutschman will make the bigs before Scott got to A-ball.  (And yes, Adley's been slow-rolled.)

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

Statcast says Mullins is +8 in OAA.  rWAR (really DRS) says he's -4, but DRS isn't on the same level as OAA.  Eventually the Statcast data will be available and integrated into freely-available sites like bb-ref and Fangraphs.

I know we want to quantify things, but putting a bad number on things is worse than putting no number on them.

But we've been down this path before.

I personally think Mullins plays an excellent CF.  His only weakness is a below average arm, but his range, reads and jumps, are all excellent.

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Guy was in his age 27 season, and they left him in AAA for 100 games to put up a .900+ OPS.  That's after putting up a .900+ OPS in AA the year before.

To be fair, half the guys who OPS .900 in AA or AAA are repeating the league and much older than the actual prospects.  It rarely translates to MLB success. Remember Luis Montanez?  In 2008 he hit .335 with 26 homers and a .986 OPS at Bowie, at the age of 26.  Most of the real prospects in AA are 22, 23.  Montanez' entire MLB career was 500 PAs of a .586 OPS.

Scott was the odd, rare case of a veteran repeating a minor league level who had a productive MLB career.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I know we want to quantify things, but putting a bad number on things is worse than putting no number on them.

But we've been down this path before.

I personally think Mullins plays an excellent CF.  His only weakness is a below average arm, but his range, reads and jumps, are all excellent.

Even if Mullins was putting up a .750 OPS he would still be a very good player when you factor in his defense and speed. 

[Pickles]

Just now, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

Even if Mullins was putting up a .750 OPS he would still be a very good player when you factor in his defense and speed. 

Agreed.  Talked about this last week.  I don't expect him to continue to hit .320 and OPS .935.  Those numbers will come down.  But he'll still be a fine player.

[Pickles]

2 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

To be fair, half the guys who OPS .900 in AA or AAA are repeating the league and much older than the actual prospects.  It rarely translates to MLB success. Remember Luis Montanez?  In 2008 he hit .335 with 26 homers and a .986 OPS at Bowie, at the age of 26.  Most of the real prospects in AA are 22, 23.  Montanez' entire MLB career was 500 PAs of a .586 OPS.

Scott was the odd, rare case of a veteran repeating a minor league level who had a productive MLB career.

Was he repeating it?  I think it was just a matter of not making his pro debut till he was 24.

But yea, we see 27 years old kill AAA all the time and not translate that to MLB.

I'd forgotten about Montanez.  That was a good story.

But yeah, Scott is an exception, and as I said, had a strange but successful career.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, Pickles said:

I know we want to quantify things, but putting a bad number on things is worse than putting no number on them.

But we've been down this path before.

I personally think Mullins plays an excellent CF.  His only weakness is a below average arm, but his range, reads and jumps, are all excellent.

You put the best number you can on it, accept that there's some uncertainty and there will be outliers, and you improve as the information and the technology lets you.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

Just now, Pickles said:

Agreed.  Talked about this last week.  I don't expect him to continue to hit .320 and OPS .935.  Those numbers will come down.  But he'll still be a fine player.

If Mullins can keep hitting like this then he's a top ten position player in MLB, but I don't think that's a realistic expectation. The biggest thing is Mullins stopped the switch hitting experiment that was messing up his swing. 

[Pickles]

1 minute ago, DrungoHazewood said:

You put the best number you can on it, accept that there's some uncertainty and there will be outliers, and you improve as the information and the technology lets you.

The issue with that, is if you start with bad numbers- even if they're the "best" you got- every conclusion drawn from them will be wrong.

And we've seen time and time again, people drawing very concrete conclusions, where there is no support for such conclusions.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

If Mullins can keep hitting like this then he's a top ten position player in MLB, but I don't think that's a realistic expectation. The biggest thing is Mullins stopped the switch hitting experiment that was messing up his swing. 

Yeah, he's going to finish Top 10 in the MVP this year- on a team that's going to lose 100 games.  If we were somehow competitive, I believe he could perhaps win it.

This is probably his "career year."  That's ok.  I bet he plays like an all-star for most of next half decade.

[DrungoHazewood]

7 minutes ago, Pickles said:

Was he repeating it?  I think it was just a matter of not making his pro debut till he was 24.

2002 he spent half the year in high A, 2003 he spent half the year in high A.  2003 he spent half the year in AA, 2004 he spent half the year in AA.  2005 he had 449 PA in AAA, 2006 he had 381 PA in AAA.  As a very old draftee I probably would have fast-tracked him a little more.

I guess when you have the legendary Chris Burke playing LF in the majors there's no room for a Luke Scott.

[DrungoHazewood]

5 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

If Mullins can keep hitting like this then he's a top ten position player in MLB, but I don't think that's a realistic expectation. The biggest thing is Mullins stopped the switch hitting experiment that was messing up his swing. 

I'm going to take a lot of credit for suggesting he stop switch hitting years ago. 

[DrungoHazewood]

3 minutes ago, Pickles said:

The issue with that, is if you start with bad numbers- even if they're the "best" you got- every conclusion drawn from them will be wrong.

And we've seen time and time again, people drawing very concrete conclusions, where there is no support for such conclusions.

But it's not every conclusion, it's some outliers.  Total Zone and DRS mostly agree, and mostly agree with the scouts.  It's just that OAA is better.  And if your numbers say a good fielder is a bad one you don't just accept either conclusion, you look into why there is a disagreement.

[Pickles]

6 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

2002 he spent half the year in high A, 2003 he spent half the year in high A.  2003 he spent half the year in AA, 2004 he spent half the year in AA.  2005 he had 449 PA in AAA, 2006 he had 381 PA in AAA.  As a very old draftee I probably would have fast-tracked him a little more.

I guess when you have the legendary Chris Burke playing LF in the majors there's no room for a Luke Scott.

In the Astros defense, they were very good then.

[Pickles]

3 minutes ago, DrungoHazewood said:

But it's not every conclusion, it's some outliers.  Total Zone and DRS mostly agree, and mostly agree with the scouts.  It's just that OAA is better.  And if your numbers say a good fielder is a bad one you don't just accept either conclusion, you look into why there is a disagreement.

I'm not talking about you, but the numbers are not also used responsibly or within the limits they should be kept.

But that's mostly just baseball message board arguing.

I have no doubt the pros are doing it far better.