Why are people still supporting Bell?

at least we know the end is near

by Freneau on Sep 12, 2007 12:03 PM EDT reply actions

I'm of the school of thought

That managers don't make much of a difference, so I've withheld much criticism of Buddy, but his doling out of playing time infuriates me. I hate you Buddy Bell.

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 12, 2007 12:11 PM EDT reply actions

I agree partially...

I think the difference between a good manager and an average manager doesn't make much difference.

However, a horrible manager can do a lot of damage both in the present and the future.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 2:16 PM EDT up reply actions

that managers don't make that big of difference, but the way he's managing playing time and giving it to veterans who won't be returning is infuriating and letting young players who need to be evaluated just rot on the bench is not right. If anything these young players might infuse some life into our lackluster offense. One more month.

by lordbyronk on Sep 12, 2007 12:16 PM EDT reply actions

Actually only 17 days....

the 30th can't come soon enough for me....

by grudz69 on Sep 12, 2007 1:23 PM EDT up reply actions

My only question:

Complaining about Bell is almost constant on this site. Not that there isn't some reason to do so, but doesn't get boring for you guys? Ok, that's not my question, this is: When the season is over, will the complaining about Bell end? I doubt it. I think there will be so much rabid anger that it will continue at a slower pace for months. And of course, whenever Huber comes up, someone will bitch about Bell not giving him the chance to show his greatness. And every time Butler makes a bad play at first next year, someone will complain about how it is because Bell didn't give Butler enough time at first.

No manager is going to bench a bunch of regulars to give playing time to a non-top prospect like Huber and a journeyman stiff like Brazell. I know most you want it, but please recognize that no manager would give significant playing time to these guys. Please get real.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 3:37 PM EDT reply actions

Please enter a subject for your comment.

Complaining about Bell is almost constant on this site. Not that there isn't some reason to do so, but doesn't get boring for you guys? Ok, that's not my question, this is: When the season is over, will the complaining about Bell end? I doubt it. I think there will be so much rabid anger that it will continue at a slower pace for months. And of course, whenever Huber comes up, someone will bitch about Bell not giving him the chance to show his greatness. And every time Butler makes a bad play at first next year, someone will complain about how it is because Bell didn't give Butler enough time at first.

I don't tend to complain about Bell often and I only posted this as a response to someone defending Bell by saying that every team he managed for got WORSE after he left (which I think I showed to be untrue).

Second, you're right. People will bitch and complain about Bell for a year or two after he's gone. People also bitch about Baird and will continue to bitch for another year or two. Why is that such a problem?

No manager is going to bench a bunch of regulars to give playing time to a non-top prospect like Huber and a journeyman stiff like Brazell. I know most you want it, but please recognize that no manager would give significant playing time to these guys. Please get real.

I disagree. It does happen and it happens even more often when those "non-top prospect(s)" and
"journeyman stiff(s)" are playing positions that we don't really have good options for anyway (LF, 1B or DH when Butler isn't playing). Oakland finds one of these stiffs almost every year...and there are tons of non-top prospects playing in the MLB today that had to get a start somewhere. For example, Brown was once a non-top prospect and now he is playing for KC taking away playing time from other non-top prospects. I think this particular protest of yours isn't correct.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 3:54 PM EDT up reply actions

My response(s)

Second, you're right. People will bitch and complain about Bell for a year or two after he's gone. People also bitch about Baird and will continue to bitch for another year or two. Why is that such a problem?

I guess it's not a problem if you don't find it annoying. I'm not a Bell lover. Never have been. I recognize that he's made a good number of mistakes. But don't you find the constant, non-stop whining and complaining about him annoying? Every lineup, every pitching change, every pinch hitter. Everything brings another torrent of complaints. If Buddy is doing it, then it must be wrong so let's bitch and whine and complain about it. (I don't mean you, in particular. And I'm not talking about any individual. It is the mass of complaints from anyone and everyone.)

Now, making the occasional comment about a bad former GM makes sense. A GM's good and bad moves can and will affect an organization for years to come. For the most part, the same canot be said of a manager.

I disagree. It does happen and it happens even more often when those "non-top prospect(s)" and
"journeyman stiff(s)" are playing positions that we don't really have good options for anyway (LF, 1B or DH when Butler isn't playing).

I haven't looked through all the teams, but can you show me one team where a September call-up who isn't one of the team's top 10 prospects is getting sigificant playing time?

and there are tons of non-top prospects playing in the MLB today that had to get a start somewhere.

Maybe if Brazell has more than one good minor league season in his life, some organization will take him seriously. Maybe if Huber can stay injury free and learn to play one position in the field at even a mediocre level, the Royals will take him seriously.

I'd like Huber to get significant playing time. No one should be surprised that he is not. There is a reason that neither BA nor BP put him in the Royals top 10 prospect list. And it isn't because the Royals had 10 great prospects ahead of him.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:06 PM EDT up reply actions

There are FOUR lights.

I guess it's not a problem if you don't find it annoying. I'm not a Bell lover. Never have been. I recognize that he's made a good number of mistakes. But don't you find the constant, non-stop whining and complaining about him annoying? Every lineup, every pitching change, every pinch hitter. Everything brings another torrent of complaints. If Buddy is doing it, then it must be wrong so let's bitch and whine and complain about it. (I don't mean you, in particular. And I'm not talking about any individual. It is the mass of complaints from anyone and everyone.)

Now, making the occasional comment about a bad former GM makes sense. A GM's good and bad moves can and will affect an organization for years to come. For the most part, the same canot be said of a manager

Honestly, I think there were as many Baird complaints during his last year as there are Bell now. I figure the Bell complaints will tail off to the current Baird level within a year or two, but they don't bother me...cause I think the complaints are justified.

I haven't looked through all the teams, but can you show me one team where a September call-up who isn't one of the team's top 10 prospects is getting sigificant playing time?

I'm more peeved that these guys weren't called up earlier in the season. Gload has been below average for a 1B all season, Larue has sucked for quite a while as has Brown. Why didn't we try out a Brazell or Huber earlier? Good teams tend to try something different when something is obviously not working.

I'd like Huber to get significant playing time. No one should be surprised that he is not. There is a reason that neither BA nor BP put him in the Royals top 10 prospect list. And it isn't because the Royals had 10 great prospects ahead of him.

You say this every time someone brings Huber up, but you always fail to mention how Huber's MLB projections from BP as well as BP's comments on Huber have been very positive for three straight years (2005,2006,2007). I just looked him up in the last three books, and BP thinks pretty high on him. I'd have to say that he isn't on the prospect list for the same reason that German stopped being on the BP prospect list five years ago. He's MLB ready, they aren't playing him...so why waste the space in the book. Remember, German was a top 100 prospect until no one played him. His skills didn't diminish...BP just decided to stop writing him in.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

Good points, short reply

You say this every time someone brings Huber up, but you always fail to mention how Huber's MLB projections from BP as well as BP's comments on Huber have been very positive for three straight years (2005,2006,2007). I just looked him up in the last three books, and BP thinks pretty high on him. I'd have to say that he isn't on the prospect list for the same reason that German stopped being on the BP prospect list five years ago. He's MLB ready, they aren't playing him...so why waste the space in the book. Remember, German was a top 100 prospect until no one played him. His skills didn't diminish...BP just decided to stop writing him in.

Actually, I think this is the first time I've ever mentioned that Huber isn't a top 10 prospect. Don't you find it interesting and perhaps meaningful that BP makes some positive comments about him and he's got good PECOTA projections and he still doesn't make their top 10 Royals prospect list?

And your guess as to why he isn't on the top 10 list doesn't hold water. They put on the top 10 list the top 10 prospects (any player who is still eligible for ROY award can be on the list). If they thought he was one of the Royals top 10 prospects, he would have been on the list. They didn't put him on the list, so that tells you something about what they think of him. And German isn't on the list because he's no longer ROY eligible, and thus not an eligible "prospect" for BA or BP.

I'm not saying Huber shouldn't be playing. He should. I think most teams should try unconvential moves like benching vets for maybe prospects. But most teams don't. The vast majority of teams don't. And we shouldn't pretend that Huber is a very good prospect when neither BA nor BP think he is. He has upside potential, but I think that upside is limited. It's not like the Royals are sitting on a gold mine there.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:28 PM EDT up reply actions

You have previously...

Actually, I think this is the first time I've ever mentioned that Huber isn't a top 10 prospect. Don't you find it interesting and perhaps meaningful that BP makes some positive comments about him and he's got good PECOTA projections and he still doesn't make their top 10 Royals prospect list?

You have several times before mentioned that Huber isn't a top-prospect when someone mentioned him. I remember this, because I posted a response to that comment and waited for a reply then too. I'd have to look for it again.

And your guess as to why he isn't on the top 10 list doesn't hold water. They put on the top 10 list the top 10 prospects (any player who is still eligible for ROY award can be on the list). If they thought he was one of the Royals top 10 prospects, he would have been on the list. They didn't put him on the list, so that tells you something about what they think of him. And German isn't on the list because he's no longer ROY eligible, and thus not an eligible "prospect" for BA or BP.

I'll admit that I'm being a little Oliver Stoneish, but the thing about German isn't true. He was #18 on their top 100 prospect list in 2000, and then was promptly taken off within a year or two because he never got any playing time. German's ROY eligibility wasn't taken off until 2006. So, while it may be far fetched, it does hold water...they have removed people in the past for not moving up. If a player gets stuck at a level for several years (like AAA of instance), then he tends to get removed from their list even if he might still deserve it.

FUTHER POINTS:

Huber was #34 overall in BPs 2006 prospect list...and he was third best Royal on that list. That makes me think that he IS a top prospect.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 4:41 PM EDT up reply actions

That, yes...but...

You have several times before mentioned that Huber isn't a top-prospect when someone mentioned him. I remember this, because I posted a response to that comment and waited for a reply then too. I'd have to look for it again.

Yes, I may well have said he isn't a top prospect. But I hadn't made the argument that he isn't on either BA or BP's top 10 list. If he really is a good prospect, shouldn't he be on at least one of those lists...somewhere?

I'll admit that I'm being a little Oliver Stoneish, but the thing about German isn't true. He was #18 on their top 100 prospect list in 2000, and then was promptly taken off within a year or two because he never got any playing time. German's ROY eligibility wasn't taken off until 2006.

You are assuming that German was not put on top prospect lists after 2000 because he didn't get playing time. BP doesn't just go along with organizations and drop guys off prospect lists because the Major League team doesn't like them. German's star fell in everyone's eyes after 2000. And that was based on both performance and the opinion of scouts looking at his skills/tools.

So, while it may be far fetched, it does hold water...they have removed people in the past for not moving up. If a player gets stuck at a level for several years (like AAA of instance), then he tends to get removed from their list even if he might still deserve it.

This might be true of BA, but I really don't think it is true of BP. They are fiercely independent and they make their prospect judgments based on performance and the opinions of scouts.

Huber was #34 overall in BPs 2006 prospect list...and he was third best Royal on that list. That makes me think that he IS a top prospect.

Actually, I think that is good evidence that they thought he WAS a top prospect. He is no longer on the top 100 or the Royals top 10.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:48 PM EDT up reply actions

I think we're just going to have to disagree...

You are assuming that German was not put on top prospect lists after 2000 because he didn't get playing time. BP doesn't just go along with organizations and drop guys off prospect lists because the Major League team doesn't like them. German's star fell in everyone's eyes after 2000. And that was based on both performance and the opinion of scouts looking at his skills/tools.

German's performance in 2003 and 2004 was actually pretty good and a lot of people were talking about him at that point. Yet he didn't reappear on the BP prospect list. Why? I think mainly due to their preference to make that list for people who haven't made the big show at all. The list is almost always players who are stil young. In fact, the list is "nothing more than a minor league player futures market."

Actually, I think that is good evidence that they thought he WAS a top prospect. He is no longer on the top 100 or the Royals top 10.

It is important to note that he was on the 2006 prospect list for having an EQA of .280, but then taken off the 2007 list for having an EQA of .280. Basically, he was the same player but they took him off...because he "is now stuck behing Ryan Shealy at first and a small horde of young outfielders..."

Both quotes are from BP.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions

The shine's off Huber b/c

he's been stuck in the minors for so long. Eventually, it's hard for the people who do Top Prospect lists to get excited when the player in getting into his mid-twenties and his team won't bring him up from AAA ball. The EQA point is a good one: he's still basically the same player as before.

I have to strongly disagree with the idea, NYRoyal, that no other manager would give Brazell or Huber playing time. Brazell might be a "journeyman stiff," but he's hit 32 home runs in triple-A this year. Huber might not be thought of as a prospect anymore, but he's probably a league average solution at a corner slot. We are lacking in the power department at the corners, with the exception of Gordon's second half. Why shouldn't Brazell and Huber get playing time? Sweeney and Brown and Gload are NOT part of the the next successful Royals team in any meaningful capacity, and those are the guy who are blocking Brazell and Huber.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 12, 2007 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm just saying show me an example

Show me another team that is givinga non-top 10 prospect Sept. call-up significant at bats. Maybe it is happening and I just don't know about it. It certainly is very rare.

If you guys require this kind of unconventional move from a manager, then you are going to be just as disappointed with the next one as you were with this one.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm not looking at the prospect lists

for this argument because that's not my point here. We're talking about two players who play corner positions on a team lacking in corner talent, both of whom slugged over .500 this year (Brazell over .600). We are a 63-82 team that is not playing for anything other than to play out the string and audition for next year. What is unconventional about exploring potential solutions to a clear problem?

Also, different teams have different strengths and weaknesses in their farm systems. One organization's top prospect might not make the top ten list of another's. Huber's probably a top ten in the O's or Pirates system, for example.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 12, 2007 5:13 PM EDT up reply actions

What is unconventional...

...is sitting decent regulars and turning September into an early Spring Training. I'm not saying the Royals shouldn't do it. I'm saying Major League teams don't do it. Guys like Huber and Brazell who are not top 10 prospects in the system but get called up anyway get a little playing time and that's it. Unless I'm missing some examples, that's how major league teams treat guys like Huber and Brazell.

Now, perhaps teams should be less conventional and try some innovation. I think they should. But they usually don't. So, if we're going to bash Bell for this, then let's realize that few managers (if any) would handle the situation any differently. And, please expect the next manager to do the same thing.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:19 PM EDT up reply actions

My point...

Moore called Huber up to see him play (there's a quote out there somewhere), so Bell should let him play.

However, these two should have been called up awhile ago given the lack of production from where these guys would play. Is that Bell's fault? No, of course not. However, I think it's not hard to imagine them sitting on the bench even if they had been called up in July or August. He did it in the past.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions

Brazell, the stiff

Brazell is not a prospect. He's probably not a starter. We'll never know if we don't play him. The guy hit 32 home runs in AAA ball. Do you know how many players hit more than 32 homers in triple A?

.
.
.
.
.

1. And that player, Val Pascucci, had sixty more PAs than Brazell.

Okay, so really I couldn't care less about the "not a top ten prospect" argument. We're talking about someone who has slugged .605 with 32 home runs in 433 at-bats in AAA. That's impressive, right? If the FO thought Brazell was a total bum, then why did he get the call in the first place?

Huber's has not hit as well as Brazell this year, but I'd argue that it's not so much Huber changing into something less so much as him never getting a chance to do his thing in the majors. People are lukewarm on Huber's potential? What a surprise! His team calls him up, doesn't play him, and sends him back down to AAA primed for a slump. It's hard to be thought of as any kind of prospect when your own organization has apparently decided not to give you a shot at all.

Neither of these guys would be replacing a "decent regular," because Sweeney isn't one, Brown isn't one, and Gload isn't one. We know what we're going to get from those guys already, and that they're not going to start for the next good Royals team. So there's no possible good reason to play them over Brazell and Huber. Thus, it's a bad move not to get either one of these guys in the line-up when we're nineteen games under five hundred. I blame Bell for a lot of this for the simple reason that he writes out the line-up card.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 12, 2007 5:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Sweeney and Gload aren't decent regulars

Come on, now you're just being silly. Do I need to post their stats?

By the way, I've said at least half a dozen times in this thread that I'd like for them to get a lot more playing time (Huber and Brazell). But it would be quite unconventional to give those kinds of prospects lots of September playing time. It rarely happens in the majors. Bash Bell for it all you want, but you should expect just about any manager to do it.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:44 PM EDT up reply actions

Wait,

are you seriously saying that Sweeney and Gload are the kind of players you want starting at a 1B/DH spot, and then saying I'm being silly?

Sweeney: .263/.320/.419. Unacceptable for a 1B/DH, and he can't stay healthy.

Gload: .296/.318/.454. Power's decent, but his low OBP kills his value as a regular.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 12, 2007 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm saying they are "decent regulars"

On top of Sweeney's overall numbers, he's hit very well since coming off the DL.

Again, I also want Bell to do some things which are very unconventional, which basically no manager would do. But that is too much to expect of any manager. Feel free to criticize him for it, but recognize that it is a criticism you would make of basically all major league managers.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:52 PM EDT up reply actions

All I can say is that if you think

those two are "decent," then your definition of "decent" is a heckuva lot lower than mine. Sweeney's hit well recently? Wonderful. He's still OPSing 739. Gload's a little better, but only by virtue of his batting average. I see neither one as a good option to start for an MLB team. I think Huber or Brazell have the potential to outproduce either one.

I am, for the moment, much too tired to hunt down every team's top ten list and cross-reference them with september call-ups of out-of-contention teams. Count on me looking it up, for sure. I guarentee you there are managers more open-minded than Bell about this stuff. I will once again say that I think your argument weighting "top ten lists" too heavily.

I have to go get dinner. I look forward to continuing this debate.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 12, 2007 6:04 PM EDT up reply actions

We will indeed have to disagree

Are you going just by the BP annual book? Have you seen Kevin Goldstein's Royals top 10 prospects article on BP from late winter/early spring this year? It lists the top 10 prospects and discusses them, then he talks about a few more that didn't quite make the top 10. Then he lists the top 10 players in the organization 25 or younger. Huber's name wasn't anywhere in the article.

I am confident that BP makes their top prospect lists (both top 10's for each organization and top 100 for all of MLB) based on performance and scout opinions. I don't think they give up on guys just because they are blocked or not moving up in the organization. If the scouts don't like how they are developing, that will affect BP's view. If the stats aren't improving, that will affect BP's view.

If you are saying that BP still thinks Huber is a top prospect but just chooses not to list him on their top 100 or top 10 list even though he was just 24 when they put those lists together, then I think you are on very shaky ground, without much support.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:06 PM EDT up reply actions

Hmmm

Nah, I have the subscription to the website also.

If you are saying that BP still thinks Huber is a top prospect but just chooses not to list him on their top 100 or top 10 list even though he was just 24 when they put those lists together, then I think you are on very shaky ground, without much support.

I think they have done it in the past (German, for one) and I think I could find others if I looked. The point of these lists are to inform people of either the stellar (Gordon) or the new...once someone has been on the list...they generally aren't on later lists unless they are really good (Mauer).

This would be a good question to ask them when they have a chat, because I don't think either of us has any real evidence about how they put their lists...just impressions.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 5:14 PM EDT up reply actions

So you are assuming

...that when putting their top prospect lists together, they saw the 24-year-old Huber and recognized that he was one of the organization's top 10 prospects but decided to leave him off and pretend that he wasn't one of the organization's top 10 prospects because the Royals organization clearly didn't think highly of him? They just went along with the team's view of him? BP doesn't show that kind of deference to opinions of Major League teams in any of their other player evaluation. Why would they do it here?

I think opinions on Huber even outside of the Royals organization have gone south. I believe Rob or Rany earlier ths year said they weren't high on Huber and thought he'd not be able to put up major league average numbers at first base.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:23 PM EDT up reply actions

That's not entirely what I'm saying...

Here is what I think. I think that they saw he was blocked and believed that meant he wouldn't get any playing time. The point of the top 10 prospects is that it is a list of the players most likely to help the team in the near future...past evidence showed that Huber wasn't going to get a chance to help. If Huber went to another team, I think he might be considered a top 10 prospect for that team.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions

I can't disagree more

I really don't think top prospect lists are about the guys most likely to be called up to the majors next. I think it is about the organization's best prospects. I even think I've seen some Q&A on BP where someone asked if prospects get ranked lower because they are blocked and they said no. But I may have seen that somewhere else. We'll see with Goldstein says.

And don't you think there are guys on other teams' top 10 prospect list who are blocked by someone on the Major League team?

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:33 PM EDT up reply actions

Of course...

but this isn't just a normal kind of blocking. Huber is a guy who hits well but doesn't play defense well (sort of a lesser version of Butler) and is blocked by more than one person at each position he could play as well as a unwillingness by the organization to play him.

There are two possibilities for why BP doesn't rate him.

My theory
They don't see him as a good hitter.

However, his minor league stats are significantly better than anyone else in the organization not named Gordon or Butler. Thus, either BP is ignoring the evidence or they have another reason for not putting him on the list. H

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 5:41 PM EDT up reply actions

You are assuming a lot

Huber isn't blocked by some star. He's blocked by multiple ok players. That's all. And you oversimplify the two reasons BP doesn't have him on a top prospect list. Here is why I think he's not anyone's top prospect list:

1. He's an ok hitter, but he can only play premium offensive positions and he is likely to be a below average hitter at those positions.

and

2. He is a horrible defensive player. There was some hope that he could develop mediocre defensive skills. But such develop has not happened, particularly in the OF. That leaves him as a 1B/DH where you need to be a genuinely good Major League hitter.

and

3. Scouts see that his hitting is not continuing to improve. He's basically topped out at 24/25.

So, he's a 1B/DH with little in the way of defensive skills and a bat which probably isn't good enough for first base. I can easily see why they left him off the top 10 list. I don't think BP is ignoring the evidence they have. I think they are using all of the evidence they have.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions

That's not fair.

He's topped out at 25? He's been a .280 EQA hitter as a first baseman at the age of 24 and 25...that's pretty good. It's hard to say that he's topped out at 25 considering that he hasn't yet played his age 26 and age 27 season when one might expect even more improvement. Until 2006, Huber has outperformed Teahen at the AAA level...the only difference is that Huber got hurt in AAA and didn't get a chance to go up.

I don't get your assessment on this guy. He has consistantly been our 3rd best hitter at the AAA level and the only reason that has been given as to why we don't consider him a prospect is:

1. The Royals aren't playing him and thus the scouts don't value him.

Except everything that I have read on the guy has been pretty darn positive (BP and Moore have both said only positive things about the dude). This makes me believe that there has to be some other reason for BP to not put him on the list...they wouldn't rave about him and then not put him on the list unless the list has different criteria than what you think they are.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions

It isn't my assessment of him

It is me making sense of the fact that he isn't on anyone's top prospect list any more. And good scouts form their opinion about players based on what they see with their own eyes and what they can measure. They evaluate talent based on those things, not based on how an organization is treating a player.

And when is the last time BP raved about him?

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 7:35 PM EDT up reply actions

I hope this ends the debate

...at least the debate on what BP means by putting someone in their top prospect list. This is from a BP chat with Kevin Goldstein on Feb. 22, 2007:

biglou115 (AR): How much does being blocked out effect a prospects rank. For instance the Braves catcher situation or Gordon being behind Teahen at KC? Should it have a greater or less effect?

Kevin Goldstein: I talk about this in a BP Podcast coming out tomorrow, but the answer is zero effect.

Basically, you have to rank prospects like they are in a vacuum, really going on talent only. For example, if the Yankees had some crazy great shortstop at AAA who was an elite talent, I wouldn't move him down at all just because Jeter is there.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions

One more thing

If "the point of the top 10 prospects is that it is a list of the players most likely to help the team in the near future," then why do they include on those lists very young players who are at very low minor league levels, such as Jose Tabata (18 years old, Yankees #2 prospect, MLB #22 prospect), Billy Rowell (18 years old, Orioles #2 prospect, MLB #55 prospect), Fernando Martinez (18 years old, Mets #1 prospect, MLB #18 prospect), Angel Villalona (16 years old, Giants #2 prospect, MLB #64 prospect), as well as about a dozen other 18 and 19 year olds in MLB's top 100 according to BP?

Everyone recognizes these guys to be very good prospects and no one thinks any of them will be in the majors in the next two years. So they don't seem most likely to help the major league team in the near future, but they are on the list nonetheless.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 6:17 PM EDT up reply actions

Yes, but...

they are still believed to be of help at some point in the future. According to my argument, the Royals are blocking Huber such that he will never help the team.

I think they tend to look only at prospects of 23 and younger unless there is some big reason that they shouldn't.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 7:21 PM EDT up reply actions

You're making a lot of complicated assumptions

So top 10 and top 100 lists are about the players that are most likely to help the major league team in the near future except for a bunch of 18 and 19 year olds if....what? If they aren't blocked by multiple players in the organization? This is making less and less sense in my opinion. I think they list the best players based on talent and upside potential who are still eligible for ROY, period. I think it is that simple. Sometimes a prospect's stock falls.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 7:38 PM EDT up reply actions

I have to say, NYRoyal,

that your argument itself does seem to twist around a little bit. While I readily acknowledge that prospects need to be evaluated in a vacuum--as Goldstein says--all of your arguments against Huber seem to center around the idea that he's not on a top ten list. I know you say you want him to get a shot, but hear me out.

I've seen you post a couple times that expecting X production out of Brazell or Huber is an assumption that, in your eyes, shouldn't be made because they are not on anyone's prospect lists. That seems to be where you cross the line from saying "Bell isn't to blame because any other manager would work the same way" to arguing that Brazell and Huber aren't good enough. Well, I can't speak for dejackso because his opinions are his own, but I assure you I'm not making any more assumptions than you when it comes to evaluating what Brazell and Huber are bringing to the team.

I'm looking at the PECOTA for Huber, and Brazell's AAA stats, and based on that I think Huber and Brazell could both contribute to the KC cause. Huber's PECOTA is better than Gload's or Sweeney's current performance, and I think he deserves a chance, top prospect or no, to prove himself given his hitting in Triple-A and the Royals lack of corner boppers. Brazell is probably more of a long shot, as he's got no history of good plate discipline, but his power spike is impressive and I think he could be a bench player with some pop. These are not "assumptions," they're opinions based on the past stats and the projections for these two. Additionally, I'm also looking at the sub-par production the Royals are getting from their 1B/DH/LF slots and the fact that Huber and Brazell can stand around in these spots.

I'm not saying these guys are all-stars, but prospects or no, they deserve a shot.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 12, 2007 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions

That's pretty much my point also.

The fact that I have made this complicated is due to the fact that NOWHERE have I seen any reason to downgrade Huber as the third best non-pitching prospect in the Royals system. He has played at the same level since being the #34 prospect in 2006 and I've only heard good things about the guy from BP and scouting people from Moore. Where is all this bad scouting info, NYRoyal?

If he were still on the list, but in a lower position...then I might agree with NY. However, he is off the list of prospects that features some players who aren't very good. This makes me think that either BP forgot about him or that they don't consider him for the list anymore. Otherwise, I'd have to question BP's assessment on this one. Give those choices, I think it only makes sense that they decided a 25 year old who has been consistantly unplayed and that people are now aware of shouldn't be on the list anymore.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 13, 2007 8:48 AM EDT up reply actions

Response

The fact that I have made this complicated is due to the fact that NOWHERE have I seen any reason to downgrade Huber as the third best non-pitching prospect in the Royals system. He has played at the same level since being the #34 prospect in 2006 and I've only heard good things about the guy from BP and scouting people from Moore. Where is all this bad scouting info, NYRoyal?

The bad scouting info shows itself in the fact that neither BA nor BP rank him as a Royals top 10 prospect anymore.

If he were still on the list, but in a lower position...then I might agree with NY. However, he is off the list of prospects that features some players who aren't very good. This makes me think that either BP forgot about him or that they don't consider him for the list anymore.

Goldstein made it clear how he makes his list. It is based on his estimation of a prospect's talent. Based on all Goldstein knows of Huber, he didn't put him on the top 10 list. That puts him behind some pretty mediocre prospects. You claim he is still a top prospect. Neither BA nor BP agrees with you. You may be right and they may be wrong. But you don't really have any evidence that BP still thinks of Huber as a top prospect in 2007. I asked you before, what raves have you read about Huber on BP in 2007?

by Scott McKinney on Sep 13, 2007 10:44 AM EDT up reply actions

Both the comments on the player...

and more importantly, his PECOTA line. Those both say that he is a good prospect especially on our team. I think Kevin ignores both of those in his assessment. Further, I don't know what BAs qualifications are for rating prospects...are they leaving Huber out because of age?

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 14, 2007 8:18 AM EDT up reply actions

Oh,

and if part of your argument is that non-top ten prospects shouldn't/don't get auditions, I'd say the onus is on you to prove that.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 12, 2007 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions

What I am saying:

Huber should get a shot. I don't mind Brazell getting some decent PT as well.
Bell is giving them very little PT and, given their status as B prospects (C in the case of Brazell), that is to be expected because B prospect Sept. call-ups don't get much playing time in the Majore Leagues. That has been my observation in watching baseball for a few decades. Of course, my observations don't amount to proof. I just don't think non-top prospects get much September PT. Because of that, I wouldn't expect any major league manager to play guys like Huber and Brazell much. Therefore, this is a very non-unique criticism of Bell. He's just doing what pretty much all managers do, in my opinion. And I think we should expect it from the next manager.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 9:54 PM EDT up reply actions

I do want to point out...

that no one on here was I using Huber as an indictment on Bell. The lack of Huber playing time can be traced back to Baird and Moore more than Bell. The fact that he isn't playing in September is secondary to the fact that he wasn't called up earlier.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 13, 2007 8:43 AM EDT up reply actions

I think you're looking for a set of finite rules..

on a very special circumstance. That would make it seem like it doesn't make sense. This is a guy at 25 that barely makes the age cut anyway and has been on the list in the past. It's obvious at this point that he is probably never going to play for the Royals and therefore shouldn't be on the list.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 13, 2007 8:50 AM EDT up reply actions

Kevin responded...

Hi Derek,

Thanks for writing and thanks for sending along that thread. I hope some of these points clarify things.

1. BP is not one thing, so at times there can be varying opinions -- something we welcome. Huber has a PECOTA projection -- that's one thing. Huber had a comment on a book -- not written by me, and then there are the Royals prospect rankings, which ARE written by me. So at times, one can see different things.

Basically, Kevin and some of the others don't agree about Huber and Kevin writes the prospect list. It sounds like other people would have put him in the list. This makes me even more sure that Huber is still a top-prospect (in our system)

A prospect's opportunity does not play into his rankings at all for me. For example, if the Yankees had some amazing shortstop at AAA, an elite player, I wouldn't move him down one bit based on the fact that they already have some guy named Jeter.
I didn't put Huber in the KC Top 10 last year because frankly, I didn't think he was deserving of it, and while I haven't done all the research and made the necessary calls to scouts and team officials, I'm guessing that the KC Top 10 this year won't have him either. At this point he's a 25 year old first baseman with some decent secondary skills and little upside -- basically a 4A player. Is Ross Gload simply Justin Huber with an opportunity? Perhaps, but for prospect rankings, I tend to rate a player with a small chance of being a star well over a player with a good chance of being a decent bench player but no more.

I think the difference between what I'm saying and what he said is pretty insignificant really. Basically, he's dropping him out cause he's old and hasn't proven anything. Well, that sounds like dropping him because he hasn't had a chance and won't get one. However, it seems to conform to what you were saying, NYRoyal.

As for the Gload comparison, that's probably pretty apt at the current time. However, that ranks pretty high against what we have in our system at this point. Gload has a bit better defense. Huber has a bit more power and a lot more patience. Career minor league line of .288/.383/.495 in a large number of plate appearances (2300+) means something. It is even more startling when one considers that his AAA performance in 2005 (.531) and 2007 (.517) slugging average exceeds his career numbers and his 2006 (.480) is in the same range. That sounds like a guy who has developed his power into a sustainable skill. I think the prospect list dropped the ball with leaving Huber out and at least one other person (and PECOTA) agree with me. I think I'm going to have to go with the evidence on this one as opposed to KG and whatever scouting reports you've heard.

Hope this helps.

KG

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 13, 2007 9:10 AM EDT up reply actions

Woah...backwards!

Uh, in case it isn't obvious...the bolded part is my thoughts. I usually put the other person's quotes in bold, but I forgot to do that here.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 13, 2007 9:11 AM EDT up reply actions

This supports your argument?

I'm sure BP has a variety of opinions on many things. Huber may be one of them. Clearly Goldstein doesn't think of him as a top prospect anymore. Goldstein knows more about him than we do. In addition to the stats, he talks to multiple stats who have seen and evaluated these players.

You are making quite a jump to take what Goldstein said and twist it to completely agree with you. He did not say that he devalued Huber because he was blocked or because the Royals weren't playing him.

At this point he's a 25 year old first baseman with some decent secondary skills and little upside -- basically a 4A player.

There you go. It is a talent evaluation based on performance and the opinions of multiple scouts. You can disagree with Goldstein. Do others at BP still disagree with Goldstein? Perhaps. What evidence do we have that many others at BP still value Huber highly. They certainly used to, but the fact that they loved him 2 or 3 years ago isn't very compelling. It is not uncommon for a prospect's stock to fall. I don't read every word that is written on BP. I may well have missed many comments made about Huber. If you have read raves about him on BP this year, please relate them to me.

Right now, I don't see any evidence that anyone at BA or BP thinks of Huber as a top prospect anymore.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 13, 2007 10:51 AM EDT up reply actions

Hmmm

There was no twisting necessary. The way he worded his email left what I said very much possibilities.

As for the raves, the actually entries on Huber in both 2006 and 2007 speak pretty highly on him as do his PECOTA. If you were to compare his PECOTA line to other player in our org and even outside our org, he would still be better than most of them.

As for the scouting proof, you say that the proof is in the fact that he is no longer rating him in the top 10. That is pretty absurd and circular. We can both agree that there is some reason that he isn't in the top 10, but without actually seeing or hearing any scouting report (the only thing I have heard is from Moore who is still interested in Huber)...making your assumption is without any evidence.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 14, 2007 8:22 AM EDT up reply actions

Goldstein says he's not on the list because of...

...talent. First, last and only. I guess you can choose to believe he's lying. But his own words tell a different tale.

As far as "raves" from BP this year, all you have is Rany's paragraph about him in this year's book, and his PECOTA projection. They don't seem to be talking about Huber very much this year. I think ther's a reason for that. BP's top prospect evaluator doesn't think too highly of him. I think there's a reason for that. Huber's stock has fallen significantly.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 14, 2007 12:18 PM EDT up reply actions

Well...

what we have then...

is one BP guys thoughts versus another who has PECOTA on his side. I think we have to go with the guy that has evidence. Kevin even said in the email that he hasn't talked to scouts yet.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 14, 2007 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Talking to scouts

Didn't he say that he wasn't sure, but he was speculating that Huber wouldn't be on the next top 10 list, but he wasn't sure because he hadn't talked to the scouts yet. However, of course he talked to the scouts in putting together his list for this year. That's a key part of analysis.

And, Goldstein is BP's #1 prospect analyst. There's a reason why he is the guy who puts together all of the top 10 list and the top 100 list.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 14, 2007 2:49 PM EDT up reply actions

I just emailed Kevin.

I asked whether he didn't consider Huber a prospect based on ability or from being blocked...I also gave him the link to this thread.

Hopefully, he'll answer back.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions

Mets

Wasn't Huber a Top 10 Mets prospect?

I think he just dropped off because he got old...the writers have to assume the teams know something they don't.

by BlueEyesAustin on Sep 12, 2007 7:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Baseball Prospectus

BP does a good job of not just deferring to what major league teams think or blindly following the conventional wisdom. In fact, that is their raison d'etre. That's what they're all about. Their prospect analysis goes by performance as seen in scouts and by what scouts say about a player. Huber's stock is dropping and I don't think it is just because the Royals aren't playing him.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 7:13 PM EDT up reply actions

I don't think its dropping...

and I think that there is another reason that BP isn't putting him on their list.

"I DARE you to make less sense."

by dejackso on Sep 12, 2007 7:27 PM EDT up reply actions

NYRoyal..

Way to set everyone straight. No more talking about Bell. Ever. Lest we not be "getting real".

by djk royal on Sep 12, 2007 3:55 PM EDT up reply actions

Whew, thanks. I appreciate it.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 3:58 PM EDT up reply actions

Right

We should bench guys like Buck, Brazell, and Huber to play the journey man stiffs like Emil Brown, Jason Larue, Ross Gload, and Jason Smith

Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com

by RoyalsRetro on Sep 12, 2007 4:04 PM EDT up reply actions

That's what most managers would do

(with the probably exception of giving Larue so much playing time) :)

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Hm

I'm just idling away the last month of the season while generating message board fodder for future searches that when people talk about Bell "not being all that bad" I can easily call them up and say, "No, he WAS all bad."

by BlueEyesAustin on Sep 12, 2007 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions

...because...

...he left future MVP Brazell on the bench all September!!!

Just kidding there, but in a couple of years no one will remember Brazell at all and he'll be trying to catch on with a team in the Northern League.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions

And hopefully

everyone will forget about buddy as well. But yeah your right about people who complain one/two years after said person is gone. When that clown BB is gone, I'll never mention his name again.

Peak oil is coming, and it's coming hard.

by PhantomRoyals on Sep 12, 2007 4:39 PM EDT up reply actions

Amen to that.... I look forward to the time

when Fuddo is not there. 17 days and counting and Buddy can eat his seeds one at a time in Cincy.

by grudz69 on Sep 12, 2007 4:51 PM EDT up reply actions

Well

Brazell I see a "Free Calvin Pickering" Mark II, actually.

What I would have liked to see is:

Butler at 1B. Every day. Until it hurts. See if he can POSSIBLY play the position.
Gathright and Costa alternating days in LF, to see how they do.
Sweeney and Huber alternating days in DH, to see if Sweeney has any gas left and watch Huber with ML pitching.
No ABs for LaRue.
Give German five to seven starts at SS and see how badly it goes.

Gload and Brown on the bench, Gload, as a PH.

by BlueEyesAustin on Sep 12, 2007 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Cal Pickering

Another guy many Royals fans wanted to get a lot of playing time...and he never succeeded anywhere in the majors.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 4:54 PM EDT up reply actions

Cal barely got a shot

He played great in 2006 (.838 OPS) in 120 at bats, but then when slumped to start off the next year, only got in 7 games in 2007.

When he went back down to the minors, he had a .912 OPS.

They gave up on him. And quite frankly, I think they gave up on him because he was a lardass.

by marbotty on Sep 13, 2007 7:47 AM EDT up reply actions

I saw Pickering play

for the T-Bones at the Edmonton Cracker-Cats (?) when I was up there doing some training for work. Needless to say, he got intentionally walked, as his intimidating presence at the plate knows no national boundaries.

Royals, NBA, Golden Hurricane, Hawkeyes, Chiefs, and KU basketball, in that order.

by Rowyal on Sep 13, 2007 10:08 AM EDT up reply actions

He should've gotten a shot

and that was noted at BP at the time.

"True friends stab you in the front."-Oscar Wilde.

by NHZ on Sep 13, 2007 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions

No team picked him up

So, he was good, but nobody gave him a shot? Any team could have picked him up after the Royals cast him off and none did. I think there is a reason that no major league team thinks he's any good. There's a reason this guy is playing for the T-Bones right now.

by Scott McKinney on Sep 13, 2007 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions

Complaints

Well man, I hate to say it....but that is what online message boards are all about. Now don't get me wrong, I get tired of it myself. But I really, really doubt that you will find an online message board/blog/thread, whatever you want to call it, about a sports team that doesn't have a constant knack for complaining about somebody or something. If you can find one, please let me know as I will sign up.

Nothing wrong with expressing your dislike for something, I just hope you realize that it won't change anything. And judging you as an educated individual, I think you do.

by MileHighKCfan on Sep 12, 2007 5:09 PM EDT up reply actions

I know there will be complaints

But can't we diversify?

by Scott McKinney on Sep 12, 2007 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions

I'm sure we can

but I would be afraid that it would just lead to obsessive complaining about multiple people instead of just one. I'm happy just sticking to one person to obsessively complain about instead of five.

by MileHighKCfan on Sep 12, 2007 5:43 PM EDT up reply actions

Butler and...

German in the same infield gives me nightmares. German just doesn't have the bat to justify that kind of experiment.

by djk royal on Sep 12, 2007 4:57 PM EDT reply actions

Just to jump into the whole argument here

Royals fans complain about Bell because we've had nothing but shitty coaches and managers for so many years that we have hit our boiling points. Maybe I'm too passionate about my teams. Maybe I need to get a life. But, I am fed up with the shit I have to put up with being a KC sports fan. Carl Peterson is one of the nicest guys I've ever met, but I still bitch about him. Herm Edwards is a nice guy, but I complain about him all the time. Buddy might save orphans from burning buildings in his spare time, but I love my team, so when I see him doing about the same or worse than the shitty managers we've been stuck with for the past few years, I'm going to bitch. If it's annoying, I'm sorry. It's just what fans do, man. If it makes me a stupid asshole, so be it. I want to be a stupid asshole that supports a winning team. Will we magically be playoff contenders with Buddy gone? No. But, he doesn't do much to help the future of this team. Sorry for the rant, but shit is frustrating right now in our little chunk of the country. We're the laughing stock of both leagues that we have professional teams in right now (granted, the Royals are improving) and angry fans have to vent. The Huber/Brazell clusterfuck makes no sense to me. Why not sit Emil? We've been platooning his ass off and on all season anyway. Why not throw Huber into that mess too just to get him some ABs? I mean, for the love of God, Shane Costa is getting playing time! Why is Costa on Buddy's good side and Huber not? Brazell may have a slight disadvantage because he's another lefty, but some PH ABs every now and then wouldn't be the end of the world. It's not that these guys aren't getting regular playing time. They aren't getting ANY playing time! Screw Buddy Bell. He's not getting off the hook with me. Oh well. Just had to get that stuff off my chest.

by royaldaddy on Sep 13, 2007 12:59 AM EDT reply actions

Amen....

by the way Bustin Heads...look out this week... I got beat by a girl and I am coming back with a vengeance... So beware....

As for Buddy...we should have fired the clown when we had the chance.

by grudz69 on Sep 13, 2007 1:09 AM EDT up reply actions

Interesting that the Royals would give Guiel

a 240 at bat audition in 2002 at age 29, which was his major league debut, but will not extend the same courtesy to Huber at age 25.

And Guiel actually played very well in 2003 (his OPS would probably lead our current team) before suffering a series of injuries that essentially ended his career.

It's not hard to believe that Huber, having a better pedigree and more success in the minors, would be ignored. There's no reason to think he couldn't outhit the current versions of Mike Sweeney or Emil Brown. And so what if he's only our DH. At least we'd finally have a competent bat there.

by marbotty on Sep 13, 2007 7:42 AM EDT reply actions

In other bad-manager news

I'm pretty thrilled about that Ozzie Guillen extension! That should make it much easier for the Royals to escape the cellar. Here's to the White Sox choosing leadoff hitters with .330 OBPs, using four pitchers per inning, and bunting, bunting, bunting!

by andrewmiller on Sep 13, 2007 11:27 AM EDT reply actions