Jump to content

Jim Callis comments on the O's lack of prospects in the league top 20's


Frobby

Recommended Posts

I didn't see a quote like that. You are being way to sensitive to this. Like I said, Cory Keylor was the Orioles' minor league player of the year in 2006, was traded to Boston in ST 2007 and was out of baseball after 2007. I am not saying Mahoney will follow this path but the Player of the Year award isn't as big of an honor as you make it out to be.

I would love to see Mahoney succeed, but this was his first year with these types of results and still tailored off in August/September.

And Mahoney does have thick skin, as he knew this was a make or break year for him and he knows next year is an even bigger year after what he did this year.

Keylor was 26 years old in 2006 at Bowie. Mahoney was 23 this past year. They is a world of difference when talking about prospects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply
So what? Its a small sample size first of all..And secondly, there is a lot more to scouting a player than what his OPS was for a few months.

Lou M won the AA triple crown..Was that indicative of his true talent?

Lou Montanez was 26 when he won the AA triple crown. Mahoney was 23 this past year. That is a world of difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mahoney wasn't a prospect before last year. Now he is. He still isn't a top prospect in most people's eyes. What's the definition of a top prospect? I suspect that not everyone of the Orioles top ten prospects would be viewed as "top prospects" by Baseball America.

I just made this same argument in the Bell thread last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 in AA is appropriate. Not young, but by no means old.

What I find frustrating about Callis' dismissal of Mahoney is that despite the fact that Mahoney can clearly hit, and has shown it this year, he's not actually saying anything against him other than "no plus tool" and "he won't repeat it". It's the same way I feel whenever Fangraphs or somebody does a piece saying Jeremy Guthrie really isn't that good because he has outpitched his FIP his entire career. When the results differ from your expected result, you should look at why that is, rather than immediately dismissing it as a fluke. Predictive systems, both scouting and statistical, are almost always flawed, and when a prediction goes wrong, sometimes it's a flaw in the system that can be corrected. Passing up what could be an opportunity to improve your system is no good for anyone, and frankly, comes across as lazy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 in AA is appropriate. Not young, but by no means old.

What I find frustrating about Callis' dismissal of Mahoney is that despite the fact that Mahoney can clearly hit, and has shown it this year, he's not actually saying anything against him other than "no plus tool" and "he won't repeat it". It's the same way I feel whenever Fangraphs or somebody does a piece saying Jeremy Guthrie really isn't that good because he has outpitched his FIP his entire career. When the results differ from your expected result, you should look at why that is, rather than immediately dismissing it as a fluke. Predictive systems, both scouting and statistical, are almost always flawed, and when a prediction goes wrong, sometimes it's a flaw in the system that can be corrected. Passing up what could be an opportunity to improve your system is no good for anyone, and frankly, comes across as lazy.

I didn't see him him doing anything but give his opinion. Those of us that do this kind of stuff give our honest opinion and unfortunately, most of the guys we talk about have "concerns." We use stats and scouting to do predictive analysis and although it's not an exact science, I don't see how it's flawed and or lazy.

For the life of me I can't understand what Callis did that was so wrong. If you want to read nothing but positive stuff go read MASN's Melewski, but if you want an unbiased position on the matter you come to those of us who have been doing this for awhile.

As for Mahoney, I have yet to talked to one scout outside (and most inside) the organization who believes Mahoney is an everyday first baseman. Most think he could be a fourth outfielder/1B type at best.

He had a great year and the fact that he's a very athletic guy who moves well, especially for his size, will help him become a versatile player that should eventually get him a major league opportunity.

Is he a major league prospect, sure. Is he a top prospect or a guy the Orioles should be counting on as a guy who will hold down a position for the next five-10 years? At this point I'd say no. Maybe this makes me lazy or mean, but it's just the reality of the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keylor was 26 years old in 2006 at Bowie. Mahoney was 23 this past year. They is a world of difference when talking about prospects.
Lou Montanez was 26 when he won the AA triple crown. Mahoney was 23 this past year. That is a world of difference.
23 in AA is appropriate. Not young, but by no means old.

What I find frustrating about Callis' dismissal of Mahoney is that despite the fact that Mahoney can clearly hit, and has shown it this year, he's not actually saying anything against him other than "no plus tool" and "he won't repeat it". It's the same way I feel whenever Fangraphs or somebody does a piece saying Jeremy Guthrie really isn't that good because he has outpitched his FIP his entire career. When the results differ from your expected result, you should look at why that is, rather than immediately dismissing it as a fluke. Predictive systems, both scouting and statistical, are almost always flawed, and when a prediction goes wrong, sometimes it's a flaw in the system that can be corrected. Passing up what could be an opportunity to improve your system is no good for anyone, and frankly, comes across as lazy.

As we have seen repeatedly, hitting in AA and hitting in the majors are two different things. I don't think anyone, including Callis, is writing off Mahoney. Realistically, though, the odds are against him. As I wrote in another thread a few months back, if you look at the good players in the majors, the vast majority were already getting substantial major league playing time at age 24. Beyond the age thing, the scouts may see things in his game that aren't big obstacles at AA, but which really limit a player at higher levels. So, if a scout holds the opinion that Mahoney is not a "top prospect" despite having had good numbers at A+/AA at age 23, I don't think there is anything lazy about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 in AA is appropriate. Not young, but by no means old.

What I find frustrating about Callis' dismissal of Mahoney is that despite the fact that Mahoney can clearly hit, and has shown it this year, he's not actually saying anything against him other than "no plus tool" and "he won't repeat it". It's the same way I feel whenever Fangraphs or somebody does a piece saying Jeremy Guthrie really isn't that good because he has outpitched his FIP his entire career. When the results differ from your expected result, you should look at why that is, rather than immediately dismissing it as a fluke. Predictive systems, both scouting and statistical, are almost always flawed, and when a prediction goes wrong, sometimes it's a flaw in the system that can be corrected. Passing up what could be an opportunity to improve your system is no good for anyone, and frankly, comes across as lazy.

Seriously, are you and wildcard somewhat related to the guy? His dad or mother? If not, you guys needs to stick with reading MASN articles where everything are roses with pure optimism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Mahoney in my top 5 in mid season. He has slid some because he slowed a bit and Givens, Townsend, Schoop, and others had a solid last month of the season. I respect Jim Callis, he obviously is well informed. I still have Mahoney #7. He may not be a super prospect nationally, but he deserves that ranking in my mind in the O's organization because there isn't a whole lot else ahead of him at the moment.

He has holes, no doubt. But I do believe he is growing as a player by leaps and bounds. I think he's a late bloomer who is just learning to use his power in games. His stats were good this year, but I think for Joe to be appreciated you have to know a bit of his history...how far he has come...and his work ethic.

Maybe he does end up a bench/role player in the ML, but that would still be better than what some said a few years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had Mahoney in my top 5 in mid season. He has slid some because he slowed a bit and Givens, Townsend, Schoop, and others had a solid last month of the season. I respect Jim Callis, he obviously is well informed. I still have Mahoney #7. He may not be a super prospect nationally, but he deserves that ranking in my mind in the O's organization because there isn't a whole lot else ahead of him at the moment.

And I don't think Callis meant that Mahoney is not a top Oriole prospect, just not a top prospect in the bigger scheme of things. I'm not sure Mahoney would crack my Orioles top 10, but frankly, my top 10 list wouldn't be worth much since I've never seen most of these prospects play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have seen repeatedly, hitting in AA and hitting in the majors are two different things. I don't think anyone, including Callis, is writing off Mahoney. Realistically, though, the odds are against him. As I wrote in another thread a few months back, if you look at the good players in the majors, the vast majority were already getting substantial major league playing time at age 24. Beyond the age thing, the scouts may see things in his game that aren't big obstacles at AA, but which really limit a player at higher levels. So, if a scout holds the opinion that Mahoney is not a "top prospect" despite having had good numbers at A+/AA at age 23, I don't think there is anything lazy about that.

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it seems to me like Callis was saying the same things people were saying about Mahoney after 2009, that he hadn't reevaluated Mahoney keeping in mind the fact that he had a fantastic year at an age-appropriate level.

Basically, Callis is saying he's a 1B with no plus tool, yet it seems to me like hitting .307 with 18 HRs as a 23-year old at A+ and AA (with the better half of the year coming at AA) is fairly difficult to do without any plus tools. There are valid knocks on Mahoney, particularly that his size causes him to struggle with breaking pitches, but guys with no plus tools do not put up .922 OPSes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

guys with no plus tools do not put up .922 OPSes.

I think you have to factor in that Mahoney only had 191 at bats in AA. If you really look at what happened, he had an amazing 1-2 weeks in July, then fell to earth. I don't have game logs, but he hit .392/.442/.797 in July in 21 games with 7 HR, and if I recall, all 7 HR came in a span of a week or 10 days. Then the rest of the season his OPS was about .735 in 31 games and he hit only 2 HR. If you want my opinion, I doubt he would have posted a .922 OPS if he had, say, 350 at bats in AA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have seen repeatedly, hitting in AA and hitting in the majors are two different things. I don't think anyone, including Callis, is writing off Mahoney. Realistically, though, the odds are against him. As I wrote in another thread a few months back, if you look at the good players in the majors, the vast majority were already getting substantial major league playing time at age 24. Beyond the age thing, the scouts may see things in his game that aren't big obstacles at AA, but which really limit a player at higher levels. So, if a scout holds the opinion that Mahoney is not a "top prospect" despite having had good numbers at A+/AA at age 23, I don't think there is anything lazy about that.

Mahoney will play the whole 2011 season at age 24. Who is to say in October of 2010 that he will not get sustantial major league playing time next year. An O's 1B or DH pulls a hammy and Mahoney is on the 40 man roster, next thing you know he is the majors. Maybe he is hot at the time and does not go back down.

Who knows. Certainly not me. But what I hate to see is people selling him short before he even gets a chance. That is what seems to be going on here.

A lot of what a read is what he doesn't have. The numbers he put up imply that he does have some pretty good tools. You point out that he was really hot for part of July and then cooled off in August. Does that remind you of anyone who had a 900 OPS and held down the DH position for the O's this year.

Mahoney is young. What he will become is unknown. I would like to see people give him the benefit of the doubt instead of selling him short. I think he has earned it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, but it seems to me like Callis was saying the same things people were saying about Mahoney after 2009, that he hadn't reevaluated Mahoney keeping in mind the fact that he had a fantastic year at an age-appropriate level.

Basically, Callis is saying he's a 1B with no plus tool, yet it seems to me like hitting .307 with 18 HRs as a 23-year old at A+ and AA (with the better half of the year coming at AA) is fairly difficult to do without any plus tools. There are valid knocks on Mahoney, particularly that his size causes him to struggle with breaking pitches, but guys with no plus tools do not put up .922 OPSes.

I wouldn't consider Lou Montanez as having any true "plus" tools. He put up a .986 OPS in 08.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...