Wash. Times steps to the plate and tries to rank our prospects.

[TheBandit]

It gets even worse. Adam Jones is the same age. He and Pie are what 24 year old prospects look like. Not banjo A-ball players.

I wouldn't argue what the sytem looks like compared to 9/2/04. I can't even begin to quantify it. Random opinion carries the day on that. If we come up against that team some day, it'll be interesting. Let's see...Markakis? Loewen?

We need to produce monsters to catch up to our competition. We can't buy 'em, and they do. Over and over. I don't see many monsters on that list. The next tier of players has no competitive meaning whatsoever. You can call them depth. I call them filler.

BOOM!! THANK YOU!!

You have just proven my point about the types of fans that are now sifting through the minor league stats today. If they aren't superstars, then they aren't prospects.

Thank you for ousting yourself. I'll simply refrain from reading anything else you post since you are a lost cause.

[Crazysilver03]

I didn't realize that depth was only relative to other years of the same team. I misinterpreted it as relative to our competition. I see that's a mistake, and we're good to go on that basis. I have no horse in that circular race. Seriously, I would never have responded to that concept.

Anybody think that list is deep compared to Boston or New York?

It is too early to judge the other lists because they aren't out yet, but you are the one that says not to view things in a vacuum, well, we graduated SIX players in Wieters, Reimold, Bergesen, Berken, Tillman, and Hernandez. Matusz may or may not be eligible for prospect lists. Did NY or Boston graduate 5 of their top 10 prospects this season?

[McLovin]

It gets even worse. Adam Jones is the same age. He and Pie are what 24 year old prospects look like. Not banjo A-ball players.

I wouldn't argue what the sytem looks like compared to 9/2/04. I can't even begin to quantify it. Random opinion carries the day on that. If we come up against that team some day, it'll be interesting. Let's see...Markakis? Loewen?

Adam Jones and Felix Pie were MLB Top 100 ranked prospects. They were Top 1 or 2 ranked organizational prospects. How that compares to a guy ranked 25th in an organization, you've got me. You said yourself that you have to compare the O's 25th to another organization's 25th, yet you're not doing that yourself.

And here you go, if you want to review 2004's list. This WP list is LIGHT YEARS ahead of that list.

http://www.orioleshangout.com/ohangout/Wilt/Top10_2004.htm

http://www.orioleshangout.com/ohangout/Wilt/11-30Prospects_2004.htm

[McLovin]

I didn't realize that depth was only relative to other years of the same team. I misinterpreted it as relative to our competition. I see that's a mistake, and we're good to go on that basis. I have no horse in that circular race. Seriously, I would never have responded to that concept.

Anybody think that list is deep compared to Boston or New York?

You're arguing a separate point.

Is it as good as the competition? I don't know.

Are things getting better in the O's Minor Leagues? Yes.

Will things get even better? In my opinion, yes, because of the large number of high upside guys on the list.

[QBsILLEST1]

I didn't realize that depth was only relative to other years of the same team. I misinterpreted it as relative to our competition. I see that's a mistake, and we're good to go on that basis. I have no horse in that circular race. Seriously, I would never have responded to that concept.

Anybody think that list is deep compared to Boston or New York?

W/O looking at their prospect lists, Ill bet that we have both better depth and quality. Especially if one or both of Matusz and Tillman are still prospect eligible. But on the same token, this prospect list that we are looking at is moot. Just like looking at anyone elses right now if you are including the 2009 draftees. That is because we dont know exactly what we have with the draftees. We barely know what we have with 08 draftees like Beal and Bundy let alone 09. Then comparing our bonus babies who havent played a game yet to Boston or NY's bonus babies who havent played a game yet is impossible. This is why I compare our depth this season to last season, because you are able to see where the same prospect ranked this year compared to last year on our own list. This guy did his best to put together a compitent list for the O's and he didnt do terrible, but you just cannot judge kids who havent played yet, you can only look at this year's prospect list compared to last year's and make a somewhat guided judgement that way...

[QSII]

And compared to other systems, you want proof that we have depth? Brett Jacobson who we got from Detroit was ranked by Sickels as their 3rd best prospect, in our system he is our 34th best prospect according to this WP guy. Then, we have Randy Henry who was considered the 2nd best prospect in JuCo if he would have went back to JuCo this season and he was ranked 40th in the O's prospect list. As I said he was the 2nd ranked JuCo player for the 2010 season, guess who was #1? Bryce Harper, so next to Bryce he woulda been the next best....and this guy is 40th....We have depth if nothing else, if you dont see that then you dont know what your looking for.....

I addressed this directly, and you are in complete agreement with me. I suspect we're pretty well represented in the lower levels, and particularly with this draft, which I thought was exceptionally clever in execution. I was kind of a loner on that point too, so I'll let it go forever.

I don't weight untested draftees and lower level prospects as heavily as higher lever ones. There are several factors to consider. Physical attrition, proven progression, etc. So deep depth kind of has to start at the top to have any meaning for me. Riley and Penn were big time depth. Whoops. Wieters and Matusz blowing through the high minors like men among boys is real depth. For a brief point in time, we had that. Now we've promoted just about every high level propect in our system. If the top of the puddle is empty, be careful where you're measuring depth from.

[RVAbird]

Age is not a factor. He's in his 2nd full year in professional ball with plus defense, a good walk rate, high on base percentage, and plus speed. A lead-off hitting centerfielder who will score runs for you is definitely big league caliber.

Felix Pie is in his 8th professional year. In his 2nd full professional year he was at the same level hitting for more power but with less discipline and a lower on-base percentage.

If you were to compare, that is how you would have to look at it. Get off the stereotype bus of people who obsess with age. If he's 25 and producing or 22 and producing, he's still producing. If he continues to produce when you promote, you keep promoting him.

You actually think that it's NOT a factor that Felix Pie was 19 years old when he put up his numbers in A+ ball and Matt Angle is 23??? You think that Felix Pie posting almost three times the ISO-P as a TEENAGER that Angle has at the age of 23 is negligible because after three years of college ball in addition to over 1000 professional ABs Angle is showing better plate discipline than Pie did before he could drink legally?

Do you really think that "age is not a factor?" Why do you think 22 year old college draftees don't go immediately to rookie ball like 18 year old HS draftees? Do you not think that a young man's body and skills develop rapidly over the ages of 18-22?

I'm sorry to be contentious but to state that age is not a factor and that a players age should simply be measured in terms of professional experience is a slap in the face to the basic tenets of both traditional scouting and statistical analysis.

[QSII]

You're arguing a separate point.

Is it as good as the competition? I don't know.

Are things getting better in the O's Minor Leagues? Yes.

Will things get even better? In my opinion, yes, because of the large number of high upside guys on the list.

Agree on all points. Yes, I was arguing a separate point. Our high upside guys could use some serious supplementation at AA and above. I hope there's another Matusz or Wieters available in the next draft.

But we're having some Jerry Macguire "communication" now, huh?

[connja]

Will things get even better? In my opinion, yes, because of the large number of high upside guys on the list.

"High upside guys" is a subjective measure which is at the core of this argument. If you look at Tony's depth chart, we have exactly 1 guy left in the minors who has potential to be a MLB star. http://www.orioleshangout.com/plus/depthchart.asp

That said it is definitely a deeper system than we've had in a long, long time. Perhaps the depth guys will be used in trades to get some high impact guys. And we need our own high impact guys (Tillman, Matusz, Weiters, 2010 #3 pick) to fulfill their promise.

[QSII]

It is too early to judge the other lists because they aren't out yet, but you are the one that says not to view things in a vacuum, well, we graduated SIX players in Wieters, Reimold, Bergesen, Berken, Tillman, and Hernandez. Matusz may or may not be eligible for prospect lists.

Well yeah, now you want to amend and backdate the list, that'll clear it up. Add Markakis and Roberts back in too. :laughlol: It's because those guys graduated that the list is kind of skimpy.

So next year is kind of a biggie. If those guys don't improve the team, then what? That was the cream of the system that was ready. Somebody better open a checkbook out there.

[TheBandit]

You actually think that it's NOT a factor that Felix Pie was 19 years old when he put up his numbers in A+ ball and Matt Angle is 23??? You think that Felix Pie posting almost three times the ISO-P as a TEENAGER that Angle has at the age of 23 is negligible because after three years of college ball in addition to over 1000 professional ABs Angle is showing better plate discipline than Pie did before he could drink legally?

Do you really think that "age is not a factor?" Why do you think 22 year old college draftees don't go immediately to rookie ball like 18 year old HS draftees? Do you not think that a young man's body and skills develop rapidly over the ages of 18-22?

I'm sorry to be contentious but to state that age is not a factor and that a players age should simply be measured in terms of professional experience is a slap in the face to the basic tenets of both traditional scouting and statistical analysis.

I'm going to answer this as bluntly as possible.

Talent is talent. If you are 40 years old and out pitching guys, then you will get the spot in the bullpen or rotation over the young guys. This is why John Smoltz still has a job.

If you want to dwell on ages, go right ahead. You're just like all the other ignorant fans out there who think too highly of their opinions. Reimold was 25 when he debuted, something that is not out of the question for Angle. Is this bad? Is he a failure? Was he not considered one of our top prospects even though he was "old" for AA?

Talent is talent. In Pie's case, he's a 24 year old who has struggled to hold onto his job and avoid the AAAA label. I'm hoping he continues to do well and gives us further depth in the outfield or even causes the FO to rethink our outfield alignment. These are good things, but they are unlikely. If Montanez had not gotten injured, Pie would be looking for a job right now. Pie's 19 year old year in Adv-A is meaningless when he's now clinging to the 25th spot on the roster begging for playing time some 5 years later.

[RVAbird]

I'm going to answer this as bluntly as possible.

Talent is talent. If you are 40 years old and out pitching guys, then you will get the spot in the bullpen or rotation over the young guys. This is why John Smoltz still has a job.

If you want to dwell on ages, go right ahead. You're just like all the other ignorant fans out there who think too highly of their opinions. Reimold was 25 when he debuted, something that is not out of the question for Angle. Is this bad? Is he a failure? Was he not considered one of our top prospects even though he was "old" for AA?

Talent is talent. In Pie's case, he's a 24 year old who has struggled to hold onto his job and avoid the AAAA label. I'm hoping he continues to do well and gives us further depth in the outfield or even causes the FO to rethink our outfield alignment. These are good things, but they are unlikely. If Montanez had not gotten injured, Pie would be looking for a job right now. Pie's 19 year old year in Adv-A is meaningless when he's now clinging to the 25th spot on the roster begging for playing time some 5 years later.

The younger a player is while putting up solid numbers in the minor leagues, the more projection he has left as his body develops and his skills are refined. If a player is 19 and succeeding in the majors, he has much more time and room to grow into a better player than one who is 24. Players in general follow a curve where most peak around the age of 27 or 28, when their physical attributes stop progressing. Not all guys follow this curve, but the vast majority of players start out raw, grow into better players in the middle of their careers, and then drop off as their bodies decline.

Age is most critical when we are talking about prospects because of the rapid development occurring in their bodies and skillsets. A player who succeeds at a minor league level at a younger age has a much higher likelihood of developing into a successful major league player than one who succeeds at the same level at a higher age. That's not a 100 percent guarantee, but there's a pretty strong correlation. Sorry if you think that's ageist or a bandwagon ideology, but it's pretty well backed up by things like facts.

So this doesn't mean that Matt Angle won't be a successful major league player, but the odds aren't in his favor and much of that has to do with the fact that he has not progressed past posting a low .700s OPS in high A at the age of 23. His ISO-P is a pathetic .058, and his body does not have much more room to develop. Because of his age, he is not likely to get much bigger or stronger or faster. Ever. As he advances in the minor leagues and his power numbers stay miniscule, he will likely see his walk rate and OBP decline as well. It happens all the time.

The bottom line is, if his performance was translated to the major league level right now he would be well below replacement level. Because of his age, he doesn't have a ton of room for improvement. He will get better than he is now, but not by much. At some point, a player becomes basically what they are going to be. Angle's not there yet, but likely pretty close. If he were performing this way at the age of 19, we would be able to say that he has much more room for improvement. Because he's 23, we can't.

If you want to continue to say that age is not a factor when evaluating prospects, go ahead. I won't argue with you any more.

[QSII]

I want a sidebar on how that 40 year old projects! Is Nolan Ryan his comp? Jamie Moyer? Franco?

[RVAbird]

I'm going to answer this as bluntly as possible.

Talent is talent. If you are 40 years old and out pitching guys, then you will get the spot in the bullpen or rotation over the young guys. This is why John Smoltz still has a job.

If you want to dwell on ages, go right ahead. You're just like all the other ignorant fans out there who think too highly of their opinions. Reimold was 25 when he debuted, something that is not out of the question for Angle. Is this bad? Is he a failure? Was he not considered one of our top prospects even though he was "old" for AA?

Talent is talent. In Pie's case, he's a 24 year old who has struggled to hold onto his job and avoid the AAAA label. I'm hoping he continues to do well and gives us further depth in the outfield or even causes the FO to rethink our outfield alignment. These are good things, but they are unlikely. If Montanez had not gotten injured, Pie would be looking for a job right now. Pie's 19 year old year in Adv-A is meaningless when he's now clinging to the 25th spot on the roster begging for playing time some 5 years later.

I guess just one more thing to add, John Smoltz has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation. Smoltz has always been good.

You want to know how we could have predicted he'd be good? Because he was succeeding in A+ ball at age 19. He reached the majors by 21. By Angle's age, he was a Cy Young candidate. In the majors. Had he been producing middling to poor numbers in A+ ball at the time it would have been clear that he probably wasn't going to be come a good major leaguer.

We are talking about development. It's true that performance is performance at any age, but the likelihood of progressing and developing decreases with age. I'm baffled that someone could refuse to admit that.

[QBsILLEST1]

Wow, this thread went into a totally different direction fast.