Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Fair points, but I think that says more about how top heavy their system was then! There was a drop off down to Reynolds.  Also it's not very often a system hasthat many guys pan out.  WMB may profile alike Reynolds forthe next ten years.  But WMB was a much higher regarded prospect overall in all of baseball than Mark Reynolds anup up until now has scouted to be a better player with better tools......I'm not saying he will better than Reynolds, bt he very well may.

    I would be reluctant to label a farm system with Brett Anderson ranked 10th a "top heavy" system. Anderson peaked two years later as Baseball America's seventh-ranked prospect overall.

    Ok but how did it look after the top 10? My point was WMB was ranked 51st in all of baseball while Reynolds never was a top 100.  Ok he was in a good system, but how did he ranks against the rest of all of baseball?



    At the time of Baseball America's pre-2007 rankings, the Arizona farm system also had Cy Young candidate Max Scherzer, Gold Glove winner Gerardo Parra, Oakland righthander Jarrod Parker and Houston slugger Chris Carter, all of whom eventually were Baseball AmericaTop 100 prospects despite not being ranked among the Diamondbacks' Top 10 in 2007.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Ok so using Reynolds status as a #7 in Arizonas system was a poor example I concede.  But on the national level (which was my main point to begin with) Middlebrooks was a more highly regarded prospect as Reynolds was. 

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

    In response to youkillus' comment:

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

     

     

     

    A lot of thought and analysis really shouldn't go into minor league stats, a mantra often preached by MLB scouts is that the scouting is always ahead of the stats.  

    Mark Reynolds never ranked higher than #7 in the diamondbacks system and never broke baseball Americas top 100.  Meanwhile Will Middlebrooks was ranked 51st by baseball America and was the sox 1st in 2011.

    Im not saying that Will Middlebrooks will have a better career, but he has the tools to be a better player.  The jury is still out and there aren't enough MLB stats to draw any finite conclusions.  But I do know he has more of a shot at this stage in his career to be an above average MLB player and while it's a SSS right now he is definitely just that.  He had some nagging injuries at the beginning of the year and perhaps that shouldn't eliminate his bad start, but maybe to a certain extent it explains them.

     

     




    Minor league stats are a great predictor of MLB performance, especially for offense.

     

     

    C Salty MLB: .243 .308 .423    MiLB: .271 .366 .458 (-121)

    1B Napoli MLB: .259 .356 .500 MiLB: .257 .374 .474 (10)

    2B Pedroia MLB:.302 .370 .454  MiLB: .307 .392 ..452  (-25)

    SS Drew MLB:.263 .329 .434  MiLB: .308 .380 .539  (-201)

    3B Middlebrooks MLB: .262 .303 .476 MiLB .275 .332 ..455  (-21)

    LF Gomes   MLB: .243 .334 .451   MiLB .272 .395 .532 (-172)

    CF Ells  MLB: .297 .350 .438 MiLB .313 .390 .426 (-44)

    RF Victorino MLB: .277 .342 .432  MiLB .284 .344 .420 (3)

    DH Ortiz MLB: .287 .381 .548  MiLB .309 .381 .532 (-6)

    Only 3 players underperformed their MiLB stats, Salty, (who was rushed

    through the system), Gomes and Drew. It is easy to see how a player will perform, just look at his stats in the minors.

     

     

     

     



    Out of the thousands of players who have broken into the majors you gave me nine.  You can't read too much not minor league stats.  Any scout or talent evaluator will tell you that.

    Not that stats are meaningless, it's just that in MILB these kids are still moving up the learning curve, and you can't really project what type of career someone will have from their minor league stats.

    Teams and organizations look at the tools.  They don't look into the stats too much because you have an unfinished product.  The book is still out on WMB, but he's shown us flashes of greatness and he was a highly regarded prospect for a reason. 

    Of course a majority of MLB players will have a good MILB track record, but that is not always the case.  Often the numbers aren't there with a player but the scouts tell us they will be really good.  Sometimes the scouts are wrong and sometimes you get a guy like Hanley Rameriz

    Yes, I gave you nine, however, I've been through this excercise before, and it will mostly hold true.

    Scouts want to say otherwise, because it JUSTIFIES their existence. Scouts said Wade Boggs wouldn't hit at the Major League level. He's a HOF'er! How could the scouts be so wrong?

    Boggs ML: .328 .415 .443

           MiLB: .318 .412  .386

    He was slightly better in the bigs than in the minors, this from a guy who wouldn't make it.

    And as for Hanley? He's the same guy his stats said he would be: .301 .372 .503 (.300 .354 ..433)

    The rarity is the guy who fails to match his MiLB performance. Which creates the phenomenom of the "can't miss" label. A label the "scouts" created. I have a challenge  for you Hugh, randomley select ANY MLB team, and I'll do the research, and see if my position is validated or not. OK?

     

     

     

     




     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    Youre missing the point. Hanleys stats were not as good in the upper minors, his numbers look better because of what he did in the gulf coast league and single a.  He's actually a good example of the scouting being ahead of the stats because even when the stats weren't there in the upper in the upper minors most thought he was something really special.  You base our argument as if scouts are completely un necessary and all we need is Milb stats.  I've never seen anyone n the know make that claim and I highly doubt teams pump millions into scouting if it's useless.  It's not as if I'm saying milb stats are useless, obviously they are useful and telling, im just saying that people look too much into them, as you are doing now.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    Also the majority of the time when a player scouts well the stats are there, I don't deny that.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from chickenandboose. Show chickenandboose's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    MiddleBrook will a blast of the sandman!! Can he get 20 before season end? 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Ok so using Reynolds status as a #7 in Arizonas system was a poor example I concede.  But on the national level (which was my main point to begin with) Middlebrooks was a more highly regarded prospect as Reynolds was.

    Houston slugger Chris Carter was Baseball America's 28th-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old while Will Middlebrooks was BA's 51st-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old.

    Here are the stats for Middlebrooks' "first season" through Saturday's game and Carter's 2013 stats:

    WM 597 PA, 70 R, 29 HR, 94 RBI, 31 BB, 149 K, .264/.305/.477/.782, OPS+ 108

    CC 513 PA, 57 R, 27 HR, 74 RBI, 62 BB, 189 K, .219/.318/.451/.769, OPS+ 110

    Not a bad comp on the hitting side.

    Here are the 2013 stats for an American League thirdbaseman who is only 10 months older than Middlebrooks:

    KS 610 PA, 77 R, 22 HR, 66 RBI, 53 BB, 105 K, .281/.349/.464/.813, OPS+ 131

    Baseball America never ranked Seattle's Kyle Seager among its Top 100 prospects.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Beantowne. Show Beantowne's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]Ok so using Reynolds status as a #7 in Arizonas system was a poor example I concede.  But on the national level (which was my main point to begin with) Middlebrooks was a more highly regarded prospect as Reynolds was.


    Houston slugger Chris Carter was Baseball America's28th-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old while Will Middlebrooks was BA's 51st-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old.

     

    Here are the stats for Middlebrooks' "first season" through Saturday's game and Carter's 2013 stats:

    WM 597 PA, 70 R, 29 HR, 94 RBI, 31 BB, 149 K, .264/.305/.477/.782, OPS+ 108

    CC 513 PA, 57 R, 27 HR, 74 RBI, 62 BB, 189 K, .219/.318/.451/.769, OPS+ 110

    Not a bad comp on the hitting side.

    Here are the 2013 stats for an American League thirdbaseman who is only 10 months older than Middlebrooks:

    KS 610 PA, 77 R, 22 HR, 66 RBI, 53 BB, 105 K, .281/.349/.464/.813, OPS+ 131

    Baseball America never ranked Seattle's Kyle Seager among its Top 100 prospects.

    [/QUOTE]

    I figured we'd get comp to Seager before this thread became history 

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    Middlebrooks developed a lot during the minors, hitting significantly better as he advanced through the minors. He has been trending upwards as a prospect for years. Only the rib injury earlier this year derailed him in my opinion. For a guy with his pop, he has decent contact rates. When healthy. 

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]Ok so using Reynolds status as a #7 in Arizonas system was a poor example I concede.  But on the national level (which was my main point to begin with) Middlebrooks was a more highly regarded prospect as Reynolds was.


    Houston slugger Chris Carter was Baseball America's28th-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old while Will Middlebrooks was BA's 51st-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old.

     

    Here are the stats for Middlebrooks' "first season" through Saturday's game and Carter's 2013 stats:

    WM 597 PA, 70 R, 29 HR, 94 RBI, 31 BB, 149 K, .264/.305/.477/.782, OPS+ 108

    CC 513 PA, 57 R, 27 HR, 74 RBI, 62 BB, 189 K, .219/.318/.451/.769, OPS+ 110

    Not a bad comp on the hitting side.

    Here are the 2013 stats for an American League thirdbaseman who is only 10 months older than Middlebrooks:

    KS 610 PA, 77 R, 22 HR, 66 RBI, 53 BB, 105 K, .281/.349/.464/.813, OPS+ 131

    Baseball America never ranked Seattle's Kyle Seager among its Top 100 prospects.

    [/QUOTE]

    You will always be able find at least ONE player who was never a highly regarded prospect who has an above average MLB career, and you will always find a guy who is a highly regarded prospect who busts.  Whether WMB has a bad, good or great MLB career that will and cannot ever be an indictment on his prospect status.  

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    Guys like that....and guys like Daniel Nava are just proof that just can't scout everyone.  But you can't just throw the scouting report out the window either

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from CTJake14. Show CTJake14's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    Midd has a cannon that would be wasted at 1B.  He looks good to me, and as others have said, can improve w/ work.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to hill55's comment:

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    [QUOTE]Ok so using Reynolds status as a #7 in Arizonas system was a poor example I concede.  But on the national level (which was my main point to begin with) Middlebrooks was a more highly regarded prospect as Reynolds was.


    Houston slugger Chris Carter was Baseball America's28th-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old while Will Middlebrooks was BA's 51st-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old.

     

    Here are the stats for Middlebrooks' "first season" through Saturday's game and Carter's 2013 stats:

    WM 597 PA, 70 R, 29 HR, 94 RBI, 31 BB, 149 K, .264/.305/.477/.782, OPS+ 108

    CC 513 PA, 57 R, 27 HR, 74 RBI, 62 BB, 189 K, .219/.318/.451/.769, OPS+ 110

    Not a bad comp on the hitting side.

    Here are the 2013 stats for an American League thirdbaseman who is only 10 months older than Middlebrooks:

    KS 610 PA, 77 R, 22 HR, 66 RBI, 53 BB, 105 K, .281/.349/.464/.813, OPS+ 131

    Baseball America never ranked Seattle's Kyle Seager among its Top 100 prospects.

    [/QUOTE]

    Middlebrooks and Seager both turned heads in 2011.  The only reason Middlebrooks became "ranked" and Seager did not is because Seager had 182 ABs with the big-league club, and therefore could not be considered a prospect.  Also, Seager was a 3rd round pick and Middlebrooks a 5th round, so at some point scouts liked Seager more than Middlebrooks.

    I have no problem with a Seager comp - he looks like a great young hitter with a bright future.  I'm glad to see the Alex Liddi comparisons have stopped.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to hill55's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]Ok so using Reynolds status as a #7 in Arizonas system was a poor example I concede.  But on the national level (which was my main point to begin with) Middlebrooks was a more highly regarded prospect as Reynolds was.


    Houston slugger Chris Carter was Baseball America's28th-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old while Will Middlebrooks was BA's 51st-ranked prospect as a 23-year-old.

     

     

    Here are the stats for Middlebrooks' "first season" through Saturday's game and Carter's 2013 stats:

    WM 597 PA, 70 R, 29 HR, 94 RBI, 31 BB, 149 K, .264/.305/.477/.782, OPS+ 108

    CC 513 PA, 57 R, 27 HR, 74 RBI, 62 BB, 189 K, .219/.318/.451/.769, OPS+ 110

    Not a bad comp on the hitting side.

    Here are the 2013 stats for an American League thirdbaseman who is only 10 months older than Middlebrooks:

    KS 610 PA, 77 R, 22 HR, 66 RBI, 53 BB, 105 K, .281/.349/.464/.813, OPS+ 131

    Baseball America never ranked Seattle's Kyle Seager among its Top 100 prospects.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Middlebrooks and Seager both turned heads in 2011.  The only reason Middlebrooks became "ranked" and Seager did not is because Seager had 182 ABs with the big-league club, and therefore could not be considered a prospect.  Also, Seager was a 3rd round pick and Middlebrooks a 5th round, so at some point scouts liked Seager more than Middlebrooks.

     

    I have no problem with a Seager comp - he looks like a great young hitter with a bright future.  I'm glad to see the Alex Liddi comparisons have stopped.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Not exactly disagreeing here so much as I'd like to make a point.  The reason why Middlebrooks was drafted 5th and Seager was drafted 3rd wasn't necessaryily because he was considered a better talent.  K.S. was a junior college dratee who was considered a good talent, but a lot of people also slapped the not a huge ceiling but a very high ceiling tag on him.  Which is effectively what he's become; hes rose to the major leagues very quickly and is producing at an above average clip.

    Middlebrooks was not a college draftee he was a highschool draftee who was rated by many as a supplemental first round pick and some even guessed him to sneak into the first round. He dropped in the draft because he told teams he would not sign and he planned on honoring his college committment to play quarter back for Texas A&M.  The Sox drafted him and signed him away from college with a $925,000 signing bonus in the 5th round which was about twice what K.S. got ($436,500) 

    The MLB draft is very strange, and like no other draft out there in professional sports.  the 2nd best player the Red Sox drafted in the 2013 draft very well may have been RYAN BOLDT who they did not draft until the 22nd round.  BOLDT for the most part missed his entire senior season and was considered first round talent, but he wanted 2.5 million to buy him out of his college commitments.  Kind of reminds me of Garrin Cecchini who was considered one of the top atlhetes in all the country coming into his senior season but he didn't play due to injury.  He dropped to the 4th round where the Red Sox signed him to a 1.2 million dollar bonus and he is considered a better prospect than any of the guys in the Sox system drafted above him; including Bryce Brentz and Anthony Ranaudo.

    FWIW if we want to compare WMB to Kyle Seager I'm all for it, Seager is a solid player.  And I thnk WMB will end up being a solid player as well. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    also taken what I just said into context, the fact that Seager was a college draftee helped him rise through the sytem faster.  He spent very little time in the Seattle system and rose to the majors quickly,  He really took people by storm and didn't stick around in the minors long enough to draw any real national attention.

    WMB was a high school talent, so he stuck in the minor leagues for much longer and gave scouts many more opportunity's to give him a hard look. 

    This doesn't come without saying that players become more/less than what people say they will become, and you can't scout everyone.  So I'm not saying that perhaps K.S. wasn't underrated because in hindsight it appears that he was.  But perhaps I'm just trying to at least partially explain it away. 

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    Prediction: Ryan Boldt was the best player we drafted last year, but we didn't sign him. He is the most likely stud of them all IMO.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    Prediction: Ryan Boldt was the best player we drafted last year, but we didn't sign him. He is the most likely stud of them all IMO.



    Prediction, Ryan Boldt Transfers to junior college and becomes Red Sox 2015 first round draft pick. Now THERES a bold prediction.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from notin. Show notin's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    This off-season, when I was messing around with projections or whatever they were, I had Middlebrooks hitting .274 with a .308 OBP and 32 HRs in 600 plate appearances.

     

    At his career total of 601 plate appearances, he is htting .266 with a .308OBP and 30 HRs.

     

    Hey Brooksie!! You owe me 2 home runs!!  (Technically 3 home runs, since he only had 29 HRs in the first 600 plate appearnances, and hit the 30th in that 601st.)

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    Congratulations to Will Middlebrooks and Mike Napoli for being named the American League's co-players of the week.

    I'm beginning to think Middlebrooks is a clone of Mark Reynolds, another streaky slugger. Compare the numbers for Middlebrooks' nine games ending September 8 with the stats for Reynolds' nine games ending September 8 last year:

    WM13 9 G, 38 PA, 9 R, 4 HR, 9 RBI, .400/.447/.777/1.219

    MR12 9 G, 38 PA, 11 R, 9 HR, 17 RBI, .364/.447/1.182/1.629

    Compare Middlebrooks' numbers since his recall on August 10 with Reynolds' stats over the same period in 2012:

    WM13 26 G, 99 PA, 18 R, 6 HR, 16 RBI, .368/.434/.621/1.055

    MR12 25 G, 99 PA, 18 R, 12 HR, 25 RBI, .317/.434/.780/1.215

    Middlebrooks nearly matched Reynolds' production over those hot streaks.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=middlwi01&t=b&year=2013

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=reynoma01&t=b&year=2012

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonBruinss. Show BostonBruinss's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to hill55's comment:

     

    Congratulations to Will Middlebrooks and Mike Napoli for being named the American League's co-players of the week.

    I'm beginning to think Middlebrooks is a clone of Mark Reynolds, another streaky slugger. Compare the numbers for Middlebrooks' nine games ending September 8 with the stats for Reynolds' nine games ending September 8 last year:

    WM13 9 G, 38 PA, 9 R, 4 HR, 9 RBI, .400/.447/.777/1.219

    MR12 9 G, 38 PA, 11 R, 9 HR, 17 RBI, .364/.447/1.182/1.629

    Compare Middlebrooks' numbers since his recall on August 10 with Reynolds' stats over the same period in 2012:

    WM13 26 G, 99 PA, 18 R, 6 HR, 16 RBI, .368/.434/.621/1.055

    MR12 25 G, 99 PA, 18 R, 12 HR, 25 RBI, .317/.434/.780/1.215

    Middlebrooks nearly matched Reynolds' production over those hot streaks.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=middlwi01&t=b&year=2013

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=reynoma01&t=b&year=2012

     




    Is it ground hog day Hill? Aniother Mark Reynolds statement? Im sure there are HUNDREDS of players Middlebrooks can compare his stats to. Many baseball players go on hot streaks. Seems like you are trying to push an agenda...

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from youkillus. Show youkillus's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

    Youre missing the point. Hanleys stats were not as good in the upper minors, his numbers look better because of what he did in the gulf coast league and single a.  He's actually a good example of the scouting being ahead of the stats because even when the stats weren't there in the upper in the upper minors most thought he was something really special.  You base our argument as if scouts are completely un necessary and all we need is Milb stats.  I've never seen anyone n the know make that claim and I highly doubt teams pump millions into scouting if it's useless.  It's not as if I'm saying milb stats are useless, obviously they are useful and telling, im just saying that people look too much into them, as you are doing now.




    You're missing the point Hugh. Which was, I am in direct opposition to your contention that "A lot of thought and analysis really shouldn't go into minor league stats. While there are plenty of reasons that compile the body of work in MiLB numbers, it is good predictor of MLB results. Exact science no, a leading indicator yes. I challenged you to randomley select any MLB team, and I'll post their numbers to see if my view holds up. It's your move.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to hill55's comment:

    Congratulations to Will Middlebrooks and Mike Napoli for being named the American League's co-players of the week.

    I'm beginning to think Middlebrooks is a clone of Mark Reynolds, another streaky slugger. Compare the numbers for Middlebrooks' nine games ending September 8 with the stats for Reynolds' nine games ending September 8 last year:

    WM13 9 G, 38 PA, 9 R, 4 HR, 9 RBI, .400/.447/.777/1.219

    MR12 9 G, 38 PA, 11 R, 9 HR, 17 RBI, .364/.447/1.182/1.629

    Compare Middlebrooks' numbers since his recall on August 10 with Reynolds' stats over the same period in 2012:

    WM13 26 G, 99 PA, 18 R, 6 HR, 16 RBI, .368/.434/.621/1.055

    MR12 25 G, 99 PA, 18 R, 12 HR, 25 RBI, .317/.434/.780/1.215

    Middlebrooks nearly matched Reynolds' production over those hot streaks.

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=middlwi01&t=b&year=2013

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/gl.cgi?id=reynoma01&t=b&year=2012



    Using 9-game samples to disparage young players we're excited about is a good way to lose the last of your defenders.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ctredsoxfanhugh. Show ctredsoxfanhugh's posts

    Re: Middlebrooks' 1st Season: 27 HR, 92 RBI

    In response to youkillus' comment:

     

    In response to ctredsoxfanhugh's comment:

     

     

     

    Youre missing the point. Hanleys stats were not as good in the upper minors, his numbers look better because of what he did in the gulf coast league and single a.  He's actually a good example of the scouting being ahead of the stats because even when the stats weren't there in the upper in the upper minors most thought he was something really special.  You base our argument as if scouts are completely un necessary and all we need is Milb stats.  I've never seen anyone n the know make that claim and I highly doubt teams pump millions into scouting if it's useless.  It's not as if I'm saying milb stats are useless, obviously they are useful and telling, im just saying that people look too much into them, as you are doing now.

     

     




    You're missing the point Hugh. Which was, I am in direct opposition to your contention that "A lot of thought and analysis really shouldn't go into minor league stats. While there are plenty of reasons that compile the body of work in MiLB numbers, it is good predictor of MLB results. Exact science no, a leading indicator yes. I challenged you to randomley select any MLB team, and I'll post their numbers to see if my view holds up. It's your move.

     

     

     



    There's a difference between saying MILB stats predict MLB success and all major leaguers have great MLB numbers.  If you look at all MILB players with great stats half of them will flame out, never reach the majors, and others will have sub par careers.

     

    What you are suggesting is to work backwards and take MLB players today and say "see, they had similiar MILB numbers.  If I give you a team and you look back,  OF COURSE you are going to find good numbers and in many cases similiar numbers.  I said MILB stats are not a great predictor of MLB success, that doesn't mean that MLB players don't have similiar MILB careers because the ones that have the talent to "make it" are the ones that transfer their skill to the next level.  But the Majority of great MiLB players will never have MLB careers or simliar Careers. 

    THAT waushed to the majors, and while hit tools and BB/K ratios tend to be similiar it is very common that s my point, and my point was also that there are exceptions to that rule as well.  Some players are rpower is the last tool to develop.  THE POINT I was trying to convey, is you canno't weight what a kid did in Rookie ball equally with what he did in double A and triple A as a predictor of MLB success. Frank Thomas never hit more than 5 HR's in lower MiLB ball.  Hanley Ramierz never hit more than 15 in 3 different levels before he reached double AA.  Adam Jones never hit one in low A and developed power slowly as he moved up the ladder.  Kevin Youkilis hit 31 HR's in 1,437 MiLB at-bats, Josh Hamilton Hit 29 in 1,150 at bats. 

    You also have to consider the type of player you are evaluating as well.  Appx half of MLB players right now were drafted out of college, so their minor league careers were more brief and often they put up better numbers right away and advance to the big leagues in several years.  But highschool dratees spend more time in the lower minors and sometimes they often struggle for a few years.  So while the majority of the time YOU may be "right" the exceptions to the rule is going to be the 18 year old drafted out of high school who may have struggled for a few years before he caught on.  theres a story behind the stats, these are often 18, 19, 20 years old who are still learning to play the game and moving up a learning curve. 

    Should we really weight what a player does at 18 years old in the gulf coast league as a predictor of MLB success? or course not, should we weight what a 20 year old is doing in single A or the pen state league? of course not.  Can we put a lot more weight behind what a player does when he reaches AA or AAA, yes we can.  

    And Like I said before if we work backwards then ALL or most MLB players will have had similiar and successful MiLB careers.  But I've laid out my case, that we have to consider, where the player came from (high school, college) and acknowledge that we have to take MiLB stats with a grain of salt because some players are rushed for example.

    You did specify that it is a predictor of MLB success for OFFENSIVE players.  Now that may hold more true as we see many examples of pitchers who have horrible control in the minors and put it all together in the majors E.G. Cliff Lee and Pedro Martinez.  Offensive players tend to have more stability (the ones who make it) with BB/K and OBP, OPS.  However the one stat that fluctuates and is a poor predictor with MiLB players are their power numbers as any F.O. any scout, andy talent evaluator, anyone in the baseball community who is in the know will tell you that power is the last tool to develop.  One of WMB best tools is his POWER.  If that develops into what it could then he will have a good successful MLB career.   It's not like looking at what a players AVG was from the GLC to the Carolina League up to the International league,  when it develops a lot of players take off.  E.G. Hanley Ramirez, Kevin Youkilis, Frank Thomas, Adam Jones, Josh Hamilton.  Yes if you weight their MiLB career totals they might of had good AVG's and good OPS's but was the power there? 

    You are saying we can look at a players career and see that he had succesfull MILB stats: generally speaking I AGREE

    I'm saying you canno't predict a players MLB future on MILB stats alone.  The future has not happened yet, your analysis is all in HINDSIGHT.  If WMB power develops he can be a very special player,  not Miguel Cabrera special, but an above  average offensive player none the less. 

    So yes once again if we go back and look at every MLB players MiLB career OF COURSE they are going to have good/similiar numbers nobody gets promoted by going 0/4 every night.  But if don't work from hindsight and look at all MiLB players that put up great numbers you will find that a majority of them never turn into that players in the big leagues, BUT SOMETIMES when a player isn't playing up to his potential we can see in hindsight that the scouting reports had still showed that all the tools were there for that player to be something special.

    Take Hanley Ramirez for example his MiLB OPS in 1,572 at bats were .788 with 27 HR's

    thats 3 MLB seasons yet his 162 game average is .877 with 26 HR's 

    clearly he became a different player in the bigs, but he always scouted well. 

    WMB is showing more power that he really didn't start to show until he reached the upper minors, but he always scouted to have good power numbers.  So we may look back at WMB 10 years from now and see that if you want to look at his MiLB stats what he did in Portland and Pawtucket reflect the player he is and not what he was doing in Lowell and Greenville.

    Get it???

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share