Townsend or Mahoney?

[kyoriole]

The player at 1B that everyone has overlooked is David Anderson. He's had a good season. He's durable and dependable and came from a good D1 College program from Coastal Carolina.

[Ruzious]

1. I don't think I ignore current stats. Normally, I'd consider them the most relevant factor. In Snyder's case, the fact that he hit very well in the AFL (which is basically a AA/AAA league) twice makes me feel that something odd is going on with him in Norfolk. So, I discount his Norfolk struggles a bit more than I normally would.

2. Really, my views are more a comment on Welty and Townsend than they are on Snyder. I've donwgraded my opinion of Snyder considerably over the last year. But not so far that he ranks below a guy who's striking out 150 times at Frederick. I don't even see how Welty can be ranked ahead of guys like Waring, Joseph and Adams. As to Townsend, I just don't like to give high rankings to a guy who has barely played, is 22 and was a 3rd round pick. But a year from now I might feel very differently.

3. Unlike Stotle and several others, I have never seen most of these guys play, I haven't studied film on them, and I wouldn't know what to look for if I did. I look at stats because that's all I have the time and competence to do. Other than that, I have to rely on the opinions of Tony and people who post here who do study film etc. and who, by their posts, are able to explain why they do or don't like a guy. And I rely on those opinions a lot for the younger guys, less so for the guys who have been in our system for two years and are 22 years old.

Sorry if I mis-characterized your method. 1 and 2 seem to conflicting. On one hand you're discounting his Norfolk strugges - more than you normally would, and on the other hand you're saying you have downgraded Snyder considerably - because of his Norfolk struggles.

[Stotle]

You have 17 players listed here. You don't think Tyler Townsend is a better prospect than:

Michael Ohlman

Oliver Drake

Brandon Waring

Kam Mickolio

Brandon Erbe

Caleb Joseph

Chorye Spoone

Ronnie Welty

Bobby Bundy

Michael Givens

I threw in Mychal Givens as my tenth because I know you are not high on him as a position player. I know that I'm quicker to change my opinion on players than you are BUT Townsend is now putting up a mid 900's OPS at Frederick after doing the same at Delmarva. He's also being sent to the AFL. I know you are high on Ronnie Welty but Townsend looks to be the more advanced hitter at the same age at the same level. Just for fun, I'd like to see a case made why any of these guys are better prospects than Tyler Townsend. Heck, I'd be happy to make a case for him being better than anyone on the entire list, although I'm not quite that high on him yet.

I think you can make a case for lots of these players being better than each other -- as I've said I haven't sat down to really think about an updated O's list, but my gut says that Townsend still is not a top 10 guy for me. I'd guess the following are likely to rank ahead of him for me:

Machado

Britton

Hobgood

Snyder

R. Berry

Klein

Hoes

Bundy

Avery

Mickolio

Maybe Schrader.

Same ballpark, generally, as:

Erbe

Givens

Welty

Drake

Spoone

Ohlman

Drake, Mickolio and Joseph have had better years than their raw stats indicate. I'd still have Mickolio above Townsend for sure and would have to consider relative risk/upside on Joseph and Drake before ranking them ahead.

If I were a bit more reactionary I could get more excited about Townsend -- maybe he'll do well in the AFL and really show his chops against advanced pitching.

[QBsILLEST1]

BTW, I"m sure you mean someone like me is reactionary and I think you mean that to be someone who is quick to change their opinion, or at least someone who is quicker than you to change their opinion. I was just curious and looked "reactionary" up in the online dictionary. Every definition I've found says that reactionary is someone resistant to change and wants things to stay the same. Is there another definition? Because if the definition I found is correct then I think you're using the word contrary to what you want it to mean.

BTW, hard to believe you've got Kam Mickolio, who profiles as a setup man, and has been terrible just about all season long, not to mention a guy with mechanical issues and some physical issues himself, ranked ahead of Townsend. Whenever I've seen Mickolio pitch, I've seen a guy who throws 92-95 straight, with no consistent secondary pitch, and with real mechanical issues. What's a guy got to do to drop on your list. I mean Mickolio couldn't have been higher than 9 or 10 last year, could he?

Mickolio has a heavy boring FB, its not straight.....But, I too have a hard time putting Mickolio ahead of Townsend unless you honestly think Mickolio will bounce back and that his issues this year were injury related.

[Stotle]

BTW, I"m sure you mean someone like me is reactionary and I think you mean that to be someone who is quick to change their opinion, or at least someone who is quicker than you to change their opinion. I was just curious and looked "reactionary" up in the online dictionary. Every definition I've found says that reactionary is someone resistant to change and wants things to stay the same. Is there another definition? Because if the definition I found is correct then I think you're using the word contrary to what you want it to mean.

BTW, hard to believe you've got Kam Mickolio, who profiles as a setup man, and has been terrible just about all season long, not to mention a guy with mechanical issues and some physical issues himself, ranked ahead of Townsend. Whenever I've seen Mickolio pitch, I've seen a guy who throws 92-95 straight, with no consistent secondary pitch, and with real mechanical issues. What's a guy got to do to drop on your list. I mean Mickolio couldn't have been higher than 9 or 10 last year, could he?

Yup, no idea I was misusing that word. Thanks! I think it's clear I was trying to convey that I do not react quickly to stats as proof that scouting opinions are wrong after a relatively short amount of time. I know that you do, as evidenced by your posts earlier this summer about Trent Mummey and Bryce Brentz. It isn't meant to be derogatory -- it's just a difference in approach. I would assume your lists bounce around a lot, which would also hold true with your re-ranking threads that I see pop-up from time-to-time.

Mickolio, corrected for "luck", has posted the following line year:

FIP - 2.63

SO/9 - 11.50

SO/BB - 3.58

Still looks like a potential late-inning contributor to me, and as I've stated Townsend isn't a ML 1B to me until I see the power at higher levels.

I could have dropped Hoes, Avery, Drake and Bundy after last year, or jumped on the Snyder is an above-average-contributor-to-be train, or jumped on reports from others about the 2009 draftees that were breakout stars, but I chose to stick to my read on those players -- guess those turned out to be okay decisions so far. Who knows what the future holds, but I'm happy with my feel for the system over the last few years.

[Stotle]

Mickolio has a heavy boring FB, its not straight.....But, I too have a hard time putting Mickolio ahead of Townsend unless you honestly think Mickolio will bounce back and that his issues this year were injury related.

I guess I'm not quite as down on his season as is everyone else. Either way, I don't have a huge issue with a "down" year if the tools are there. Now, he turns 27 next May, so this is the last run on the prospect train either way. But I take his complete package over a number of other talents touted around these parts.

[Stotle]

Are you really going to try and tell me that a pitcher who gave up 45 hits and 17 walks in 35 IP, was unlucky and should really have had an ERA of 2.63? You trust a stat that tells you that?

This sounds like a case of it walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, and you telling me it's a swan.

I think the point of certain metrics is to use the larger body of statistical analysis to determine if/when certain statistics are misleading and when they are not.

In Mickolio's case, his BABIP has been:

2006 - .320

2007 - .303

2008 - .315

2009 - .272 (AAA)

2010 - .402 (AAA)

I'm no stats guru, but my understanding is that a BABIP around .80 higher than you've generally posted throughout your career (and 1.30 higher than you sported at the same level the previous year) might indicate that it's POSSIBLE an unusual number of batted balls found their way to being base hits. It's certainly enough for me to pause a second and consider how strongly I feel about his stat line given that context.

If you're comfortable shrugging that of completely, well more power to you sir. My personal opinion is maybe you are taking more away from a stat line than you should, or at least not looking at the full picture. Of course, maybe I'm just an apologist...

[Stotle]

Doesn't it make sense that a high BABIP number is due to a pitcher ptiching badly and having hard hit balls off of him? I believe in luck. I also believe in common sense. Bad pitchers or pitchers who pitch badly are going to have high BABIP numbers, aren't they?

Intuitively, I'd say yes. And I think Mickolio did not pitch as well this year as he has in the past.

I actually just sat down and took a closer look. To my surprise, his BABIP actually increases once normalized for luck -- due to a 10% bump in his LD% from last year. The stat accounts for (at least in part) a pitcher getting hit hard by trying to bring the stats into the norm that you'd generally expect given the pitcher's LD%, GB%, FB% and the historical percentage of hits that generally fall in depending on hit type.

Best I can tell, he was dinged for his 18.7 HR/FB%. Normalizing for luck he would have dropped to 7.8% -- still not good, but it should not be as bad as it was (if you believe that HR/FB% tend to stay reasonably close to historical rates, which the couple stat guys I know seem to think).

I honestly have no idea but tend to trust statistical matters to the folks that spend lots of time researching stats and coming up with these evaluative tools. You are apparently comfortable negating the research that these statisticians put into creating these tools, yes? In other words, we shouldn't pay attention to what should be a lower FIP, even though the tool agrees that Mickolio was hit harder this year than last on the whole?

And just because it's the underlying larger point, no Townsend is likely still not in my top 10 right now even if Mickolio were to drop to #31.

[Stotle]

Oh brother. I"m just arguing that Mickolio pitched badly this year and I think any system that says he should have had a 2.63 ERA this year is flawed. That doesn't mean I negate the research that people have done. No system is perfect. Apparently neither is this one, unless you believe Mickolio really pitched well and was the unluckiest pitche around. You still didn't answer. If his FIP is 2.63 then that would suggest he pitched well. If you believe 100% in that stat then you must believe he pitched well this year. Do you?

Classic RZ -- try and paint someone into a stance they don't hold by creating a false premise and requesting a yes/no answer. "Oh brother" is right . This is my stance (which is pretty clear, but I'll simplify further).

1. I don't like ranking off the cuff and personally think it is silly and in almost every instance where there are big jumps it exposes people as relying on small sample sizes or not doing enough digging to justify the swing in opinion.

2. I previously thought of Mickolio as a decent enough bet to be a late-inning arm at the ML level and a good bet to provide ML value.

3. A brief look at his stats from this year seems to indicate he has been more hittable than last year, but he is still missing a lot of bats and there is some chance that he got hit with some bad luck along the way.

4. I don't see enough RIGHT NOW to throw him out with the bath water -- maybe I will once I have a chance to really dig into the numbers, take a look at some mechanical vids from this year and talk to some east coast evaluators that may have seen him.

My view: raw numbers don't look good, I've had a fairly good opinion of him in the past, there is at least some statistical indication that his raw stats might be showing him to have had a worse season than he actually did.

Your view: raw numbers don't look good, I see other players with better raw stats that I have decided for my latest rankings should be ranked higher than Mickolio, there is at least some statistical indication that his raw stats might be showing him to have had a worse season than he actually did but I will not entertain that as a possibility.

[Stotle]

Ok, I'll bite. What was the false premise? You are aguing that Mickolio is a top ten prospect and a better one than Townsend. I'm arguing the opposite. It's as simple as that but you want to make it a Stotle verses RZ thing. The argument turned into, was Mickolio bad or good but unlucky this year. You claimed he was more unlucky. Where's the false premise?

The false premise was "If his FIP is 2.63 then that would suggest he pitched well. If you believe 100% in that stat then you must believe he pitched well this year. " I think there is room between "pitching well" and the bad season his raw stats indicate. Normalizing for luck/park certainly isn't perfect -- how could it be? But seeing the seemingly large discrepancy makes me think that even though he clearly was not as effective as in past seasons (a point I've conceded already), the season might not be as bad as it looks on its face.

That's fine. I think it's fun for us amateurs to rerank and make new lists based on small sample sizes. Heck, Baseball America has guys ranked 15 or 19 one year and completey out of the top 30 the next year, so a season means a lot to them. We aren't all superscouts like yourself. Maybe I'm silly but I'm having fun being silly with my prospect lists. I may look stupid when I have a guy ranked 3rd one month and 12th two months later. So be it. Of course, you might look silly from time to time too based on moving a guy up or down too slowly based on your scouting reports and ignoring performance.

1. I think you are missing how close many players are once you work out of the top tier of prospects in most systems. There is generally a mixture of high ceiling/high risk, lower ceiling/lower risk players once you get outside of the Top 15, so it would not be much of a shock to see someone drop out or someone jump in. Further, I've conceded I do the same, just maybe not to the same extent as you do, and I'm less likely to do it when I have strong feelings about a player.

2. I've conceded I can lag behind in making changes and that I can have egg on my face. Thanks for restating, but you aren't making a new point here.

So did I. Of course, he's now 26 as you said. If we look at his minor league stats. He's never really dominated anywhere over a full season. He's battled mechanical issues and this year he's had some injuries. Is he hopeless? Of course not. Should he drop down the prospects lists. I say yes. You say no. It's a simple difference of opinion. That's cool. I just call BS when you try to explain Mickolio's season away on bad luck. You don't like it, as usual.

I haven't said "no". You're putting words into my mouth. You were asking to have a convo I already stated I wasn't really ready to have (re-rankings) and are trying to nail me down to a firm position I have stated I'm not ready to take. I answered as best I could -- that my best guess is that Mickolio would still be around where he was last year. I'm not explaining away the season (again words in my mouth), I'm giving a reason why I am not ready RIGHT NOW to declare he is dropping down my list when I put it together. This isn't complicated stuff.

3

He may have been hit with some bad luck. The bigger picture is that he just wasn't good this year. I realize that that is a tough thing for you to type.

It's not tough for me -- I have no emotional attachment. I have no issue being wrong, no matter how many times you type it. I have said a couple times in this discussion that Mickolio has clearly not been as effective as he was in year's past. I think if you re-read (read) my post in full you'll see this.

Take your time. I'm giving my opinion now without the mechanical vids and the conversations with the east coast evaluators. What can I say? I'm at a loss when it comes to the evaluation tools compared to you.

I don't know if that is true or not. My guess is I probably spend a lot more of my free time trying to get better at evaluating than you do, but that's just a guess. It certainly doesn't mean my opinions trump all, and I try not to come off as if I think it does.

Didn't you already say this?

Didn't you already say this twice?

Yeah, but as I can again see from this latest line of questioning, you simply aren't listening. So I'm trying to find the most direct way to express these views. I honestly can't believe how badly you are butchering my position, intentional or not.

My view was stated above. I haven't given up totally on Mickolio. He has some talent when healthy. He's never put it together over a full season. He's 26, has mechanical issues, and had a poor season. I feel there's good reason to drop him down my lists. That doesn' mean a player can't move up and down a list from year to year. That's exactly what happens on just about any expert's lists from year to year.

Who said players can't move up and down lists? You're taking a comment of mine about me personally jumping Mahoney/Townsend 10+ spots and applying it to this discussion. Further, you are actually framing it as if my point is that players cannot be dropped down lists. Just, wow...

In conclusion, I realize that you are an expert and I am not. No need to throw around words like "reactionary" and "silly". Can't us amateurs just have a little fun? Aren't we allowed to have opinions? Is it wrong to question an expert?

I apologize if my misuse of "reactionary" came off as offensive. I said as much already -- it was intended to explain an approach that relied heavily on "what have you done for me lately" analysis and didn't rely heavily on context or extrinsic factors (in comparison to the most recent stats).

It's essential to question experts. If you are considering me an expert, I include myself as one who really enjoys being questioned and discussing. Looking at your line of questions, though, this isn't a back and forth and you aren't listening to (or are just not getting) the points I'm making. So I don't even have the luxury of arguing an opinion. I get to spend my talking time trying to clarify my point to you, only to have you misstate it over and over again.

Oh! I know. Classic RZ. Don't bother answering any questions. Just call me some more names. :clap3:

I think I have answered your questions -- apologies if you feel I didn't.

[Stotle]

Again, I get accused of being RZ The Terrible! I get accused of creating a false premise. The discussion started with the posts. I question your ranking of Mickolio. You brought up the luck factor. Where's the false premise? What did I do so wrong?

You aren't terrible. I just think you decided to have a debate with me over something I stated I didn't feel passionately about and wasn't really prepared to debate in the first place. You decided Mickolio would be the battle ground, even though the convo was actually about relative rankings of Mahoney/Townsend.

That's fine, and I won't repeat my stance on Mickolio again. My post you reference above isn't a ringing endorsement of Mickolio, it's a raising of a fact -- simply that using a statistical tool makes Mickolio's stats look pretty solid.

What makes your analysis of the raw stats more legit than my raising of the adjusted stats? I don't see me assigning a value to Mickolio. I'm making a statement as to how I'd interpret a stat line I see. That's it. You go on later in the convo to frame it as me thinking Mickolio pitched well. I don't think that is an accurate summary of my stance.

[Stotle]

I do find this part particularly irritating. Yeah, RZ is so dense that he just can't understand my clear position. OR he's just a jerk and intentionally mistating it. Wow! Two choices. Can't say I like either one. How about this? I questioned you ranking Mickolio ahead of Townsend. I talked about Mickolio's poor season. You counterd with stats that showed he had a 2.63 FIP. Maybe I'm stupid but it seems to me you used that stat to show that Mickolio wasn't really that bad. Am I that stupid? Did I get that part wrong?

First, this first bolded made me laugh and I wanted to take a second to say there is no bad blood here and I appreciate that even though we can both be frustrated with the convo I appreciate that there is humor in your post.

Yeah, you got it wrong (second bolded). My point wasn't that his season wasn't really that bad. My point is that there is evidence that his season MIGHT not have been that bad. It's a pretty big difference. It's the difference between "I know I'm right" and "Hmm, I guess I have to look at this a little closer because it seems like there might be more here."

If you concede there is a difference between those two statements, then you can see me frustration. I'm trying to say that:

- Mickolio was top 10 for me entering this year (something we disagree about because of our different takes on the value of a relief prospect -- which is of course fine and makes debate more interesting).

- Mickolio had a bad year and performed worse than last year, but there is some evidence it may not be as bad as the raw stats indicate.

- I felt pretty strongly about Mickolio, having him in the Top 10, so even though the raw stats look not so good, the adjusted stats make me think I need to take a closer look to understand the season and how it should affect projecting him moving forward.

You keep stating that my point is:

- Mickolio's adjusted stats show a 2.60 FIP so his season wasn't so bad.

I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't want to have an opinion attributed to me that isn't mine, and then be asked to defend it.