Rany Part 2 on the minors
I say this in the comments as well, but I'll mention it here: I think it may be possible that GMDM has actually outsmarted us all and actually embraced the concepts behind moneyball by identifying that prospects are currently overvalued and that actual major league talent is underrated.
about 1 year ago
RoyalPug
30 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Selling high
on prospects is something I hope GMDM is willing to do. The hype (and rankings) around all these prospects will make that easier – Rany is right that you can now acquire an accomplished ML player without giving up the sun, the moon and the stars. Let’s hope several of these guys succeed and that GMDM and his scouts figure out who won’t before everyone else does and deals them. I have NO idea if he can or will do that.
I hope he doesn't
For 2 reasons:
1) Arizona did this with their great system from 2006, and it didn’t work out well at all. I can think of teams that have sold off prospects without doing too much damage to themselves, but I can’t really think of any that really built up team that way. It just seems like the likely results are skewed to the downside.
2) In general, unproven talent will be undervalued relative to established players. GMDM seems to have an a unique ability to accurately value minor league talent, and this gives him a big advantage in acquiring prospects, but it is much less beneficial in unloading them (b/c if the market values are artificially low, there’ll be a much larger gap between the the low market value and a high true value than the low market value and a low true value).
I’d rather see GMDM use the financial flexibility that these cost-controlled players provide and trade dollars for accomplished players (not literally trade but sign as FAs). If we’ve got $80M in payroll and we’ve only got Billy, Gordon, and Soria signed for 2012, then, with cost-controlled players filling out the rest of the roster, we’re talking about $250M in spending room over the next five years. If we’re going to bring in outsiders, I’d rather use actual currency than the currency of baseball.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
We need to continue investing heavily in the draft and int’l FA with some of that cash. I think investing in the farm is a must for this organization every year.
We have no need to trade prospects for expensive players until next year at the earliest. If you can dish a guy you don’t think is actually that great for a solid veteran on a longer deal it’s a no brainer. I’m not sure who the Royals actually feel that way about, apart from maybe being concerned about Duffy’s commitment.
Could Crow fit into this area?
Scouts still love his stuff but his results haven’t been there yet, always a chance some front office thinks they can fix him.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
His stats aren't actually that bad with like 60% GB rate.
I think he could move fast, but who knows.
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
by Jeff Zimmerman on Mar 5, 2011 6:03 AM EST up reply actions
Perhaps, but I’m not sure he fits the high hype and low chance of actually being good profile. Hype on Crow isn’t that low. I think the deal is that you have to have a guy like Gordon and then be able to predict him failing…
Whom of Myers, Hosmer, Mous, Monty, and Lamb will fail to produce is the question I think we would want to know.
by WURoyal on Mar 6, 2011 10:35 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Hype on Crow isn't that high, rather.
Moreover, even the scouts talking about his stuff are referring to his fastball and slider, which doesn’t solve the fact he can’t control a changeup (and thus has to be a reliever).
by WURoyal on Mar 6, 2011 10:37 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
This is the reason those of us who have been following the system are excited.
Goldstein: "Somewhere between 3 and 5 guys, I think?" Goldstein, however, has TEN Royals (the same nine guys from BA’s list as well as Jeremy Jeffress) in his Top 101.
Law: "I’m thinking at least 7, probably more like 8-10. Dwyer, Odorizzi, Ventura, Colon, Yambati, Jeffress, Adam for certain. Probably Collins because at some point I’ll start ranking relievers, plus Eibner and Crow. That’s 10." Keep in mind that Law had only six Royals in his Top 100, although he had Dwyer and Odorizzi among his 10 prospects who "just missed".
Callis: "Guys who I ranked 101-150: Crow, Eibner, Jeffress. Guys who other BA editors ranked 101-150: Adam, Ventura, Collins. If you take it down to 200, you could make a case for Melville, Cuthbert, Yambati, Perez—everyone’s lists are all over the place at that point.
I think it’s safe to say you could put as many as 17 Royals on the Top 200 (or eight from 101-200)."
Checkout Royals minor league notes at www.14for77.blogspot.com
This struck me as hyperbole at its best and ass kissing at its worst:
The Royals have nine Top 100 Prospects this year, but given the odds, we can expect no more than three or four of them to be quality players in the majors. Ergo, the Royals’ youth movement is doomed to failure.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
by Warden11 on Mar 4, 2011 10:22 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Yeah, I'm not sure what that was about
Whose argument is he addressing? I assume he wasn’t ascribing that argument to me (I think my name was in the sentence prior to that quote). I don’t think anyone else is saying “the youth movement” (however one defines that) is doomed to failure because most of the Royals in BA’s 2011 top 100 are likely to fail. There are many more variables than that. So is Rany creating a straw man argument here? Or is he just addressing a hypothetical argument?
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 4, 2011 11:51 PM EST up reply actions
It was definitely painting that as your argument,
which I totally missed if that was your point.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
People ask me what I do in winter when there’s no baseball...Rock Chalk Talk
I actually think he's been pretty good about saying that's not Scott's argument
He’s attacking people like Petro who’ve used Scott’s numbers to be dismissive of how much the minors will actually contribute.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Agreed. I think he made that more clear in Part 1
and didn’t make that clear when he mentioned it again in Part 2.
Yeah, people like Petro are taking my study and going way overboard with it
But it is clear that Moore is going to have to do a lot right at the major league level to get the Royals into the playoffs. It’s just a question of how much he’ll have to do. Without really attempting to quantify it, it seems like Rany is attempting to paint a picture that between a consistent wave of top 100 prospects which should succeed at a right higher than historical averages, and lots of meaningful contributions from unraked prospects, the Moore won’t really need to do much. I don’t think that’s realistic. But Rany is keeping his conclusions vague enough that it is difficult to assail it.
If all Rany is saying is that the ultra doom and gloom people like Petro are going too far, then I certainly agree. But Rany really isn’t making it clear what he’s saying. It seems like he’s throwing a lot of points out there that have a common theme, but he’s not attempting to coalesce them into a conclusion.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2011 1:03 PM EST up reply actions
I think what he is trying to say is that the Royals can get
into contention without the need to sign many or even any free agents. I would agree that the Royals could do pretty much all they need to do with trades and the farm system and being in the central. It is all going to hinge on what we get for starting pitching. If we get some good starters out of our prospects, we are in very good shape. historically the four lefties and Crow would result in all busts 3/8th of the time, one good pitcher 4/8th of the time and two or more good pitchers is only one out of eight. If we do get two good above average starting pitchers out of those five then we are in good shape.
It is a realistic hope, but I think trading those five for two number two to number three type starters and having the cash to pay for them would give the Royals a better chance to win then hopeing for the pitching prospects to turn out. We could compete this year in the central if we did that. We would only be a handful of projected games behind the current central favorites.
Go Royals!
I think Rany's point is:
I think he’s saying that the 2014 team will have:
Butler and Soria:
high chance of 2 average and meaningful chance of 1 average, 1 star
The proceeds of this year’s BA prospects:
expect 2 contributors, 2 average and 1 star based on Scott’s work
The proceeds of BA’s 2013 list (assuming no overlap with this year’s list):
Rany believes that the system’s depth plus the high draft picks will generate a very good system ranking in 2013, if not quite as good as this year’s "best ever. Let’s say it projects, using Scott’s work, to result in 2 contributors, 1 average and 1 star
The guys worth keeping off the current young players (Hochevar, Bl. Wood, Kila, L. Cain, Maier, Blanco, Aviles) not eligible for prospect status:
No idea what percentages to apply here, but I think Rany would argue that the chances for players already established in the majors is higher than for top 100 prospects — this may be where Scott thinks he’s being too aggressive — so let’s say 2 contributors, 2 average, 1 star.
The proceeds of the guys already in the high minors but not appearing on the top 100 list, guys like Collins, Jeffress, C. Robinson, Dyson, etc. (These are guys that won’t be appearing on the 2013 list so there’s no overlap with that category):
Again no idea what percentages to apply here although I think that Wang study gives us some guidance based on Sickels’ prospect grades. Let’s say 1 contributors, 1 average.
That means that the current system (plus the 2011 and 2012 drafts) would be expected to provide 7 contributors, 7 average, and 4 stars. That’s 18 of the 25 man roster if you kept all those contributors (4 relievers, a no. 5 pitcher, a backup catcher, and a utility fielder?) but let’s say you only keep 6.
So that’s
6 contributors @ 1 WAR
7 average @ 2 WAR
4 stars @ 3 WAR (maybe higher?)
which is 32 WAR for the 2014 team from the current system (plus drafts).
It still leaves 8 spots on the 25-man roster for GMDM to fill, but between all of them, they only need to generate 10-12 WAR.
I don’t want to put words into Rany’s mouth, but I think that these numbers are something close to what he’s describing — maybe he’d say higher results from the 2013 list and lesser results from the players who’re already on the team. I’m guessing Scott thinks Rany’s being aggressive in those two areas. But enough guessing on my part. What do you think?
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
by KSinDC on Mar 5, 2011 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Rany might be suggesting that, but I won't hold him to those numbers. But many of those numbers are unrealistic.
I agree with the 2014 team being comprised of:
Butler & Soria = 1 avg., 1 star
2011 BA top 100 list = 2 cont., 2 avg., 2 stars
Non-top 100 prospects = 1 cont., 1 avg.
Now, how good the other prospects will turn out to be is extremely speculative. I don’t think we can assume that enough of them will blossom (as top prospects) and became highly enough ranked to likely turn into 2 contrib., 1 avg., 1 star. That would still require an excellent showing on BA’s top 100 lists from 2012-13 (of new prospects not on the 2011 list). That is possible, but I don’t think we know enough to think that it is likely.
As for the guys worth keeping out of the current young players (not including Butler and Soria), I don’t think it is likely that the Royals will get 2 cont., 2 avg. and 1 star out of that group. That group doesn’t have much in the way of elite talent.
Another thing to remember is that if we’re talking about the 2014 team, many of the prospects at that time who will eventually become successful in the majors won’t become successes until 2015-17 (or even later). So, while the system could churn out decent/good/great major leaguers for years, they won’t all be contributing to the major league team at the same time. The new top prospects on the BA 2012 and 2013 list likely won’t be contributing to the major league team until Soria, Butler and some other current Royals are gone.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 5, 2011 11:33 PM EST up reply actions
A question on the last paragraph
If I understand what you’re saying, I’m not adjusting for the fact that a lot of these prospects will be very early in their careers, and so some of them, even if they’re destined for stardom, won’t yet be producing at that level. This ramp up in production makes sense to me based on what I know of player aging curves.
However, I think it actually has the opposite effect on the numbers from what you suggest. Your numbers show average production over six years, but if it’s true that WAR grows over the cost controlled years, then we’d expect the guys currently on or near the team (that is, who will be later in their cost-controlled years in 2014) to produce more than average and expect the guys on the 2013 list to produce less than average. Since most of the production above is coming from guys on or near the team now, it would have the effect of boosting the overall projected production, right?
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Certainly I’d expect a prospect who succeeds to have a higher WAR later in his cost controlled years than he had earlier. But I’m trying to say that those guys on the 2013 top prospect list for the most part won’t even be on the 2014 KC Royals team, or might be in a rookie season which would likely provide very little in the way of production. I doubt this would likely be offset by huge WAR spikes from other, somewhat more experienced players.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions
Well, you're the man with the data
So I guess you’d know if players generally don’t even qualify as major league players in the second player after making a BA list. If you’re saying that these guys won’t even be in the majors, I defer to your data.
If you’re saying that the lower production of young players won’t be offset by greater production of older players, then I’m misunderstanding. I thought you were saying that the averages in your study are resulting from lower production from young players offset by greater production from older players. I don’t know if that comes from huge WAR spikes or a few runs above average from each of the older players. However, if it happened in your study, it’s reasonable to project it will happen to the Royals.
If older players produce more, and if we have a sample that is composed of more guys more experienced than the mean, then the results should be higher than the average results. That’s basic algebra.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Assuming the contributors are bullpen guys though I don't find it unlikely at all
Aviles, Escobar, Cain, Gordon, Kila, Hoch, Mazzaro, O’Sullivan, Getz, the bullpen.
I think it’s probably reasonable to expect Aviles and Hochevar to be average (with Aviles having a shot at start status, IMO). Escobar, Cain, Gordon, Kila, Mazzaro, O’Sullivan, Getz, and the bullpen won’t produce an average player or a star?
I’m not so sure. Escobar is a contributor even if he doesn’t improve on a terrible season with the bat. Any other player on that list could be a contributor or average.
Gordon won't be under team control in 2014
But I did forget to mention Getz below. I’d put him in the bottom category.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Right, but that's a decision GMDM will have to make
I think the question Rany is getting at is: how much will the system produce, and how much do we need to rely on GMDM’s judgments on the quality of major league players. I think GMDM’s record on extending guys already on our team is actually pretty good, but it’s in the area (evaluating the value of major league players) where people are most suspicious of his ability.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
On the current young players
You think that the current young players don’t have enough elite talent to generate 2 contrib, 2 average, 1 star
Here’s what we have on the current team who will still be under team control in 2014:
A couple guys with very solid rookie MLB performances:
Aviles (4.0 fWAR in 102 games in first [and only healthy] MLB season)
Cain (1.2 fWAR in 41 games in first MLB season — that’s 4.4 WAR / 150 games, or discounting for injury problems, 3.5 WAR / 120)
What is the projection rate for guys producing at this level in their first MLB season? Surely it’s considerably higher than for guys who are only prospects
Three guys with strong minor league credentials:
Kila (two AAA seasons over 1000 OPS, over .450wOBA although Sickels never graded higher than B)
Hochevar (1st overall pick, 2007: Sickels A-, BA#32; 2008: Sickels: B, BA#63)
Escobar (2009: Sickels B, BA#19; 2010: Sickels B+, BA#10)
If you use Victor Wang’s work, it looks like Kila has almost no chance of making a major league contribution. If you use Minor League Equivalents, he looks more promising. According to Scott’s work, based on his minor league grades, Luke has about a 20% chance of becoming and average of better player and an additional 20% chance of being a contributor, and Escobar has a 60% chance of being a success or better and an additional 20% chance of being a contributor
One guy some people are high on:
Vin Mazzaro (0.7 fWAR, 0.0 fWAR in first two partial MLB seasons, never made BA list, Sickels highest grade B- although Sickels was more positive when Mazarro was promoted from AAA)
Other guys who don’t look likely to become much beyond contributors:
Mitch Maier (0.8 WAR, 0.4 fWAR in first two MLB seasons)
Gregor Blanco (1.1 fWAR in each of two full MLB season)
Sean O’Sullivan (Sickels once graded at B, but negative fWAR in both MLB seasons)
Blake Wood (negative fWAR in only MLB season, Sickels never graded higher than C)
Out of Kila, Hochevar, and Escobar, it seems pretty straightforward to project one contributor, one average or better. If you project Aviles and Cain to produce two average or better, this projection looks pretty solid (it means one contribtor from Mazarro, Maier, Blanco, SOS, and Wood). It really comes down to how you project off of actual MLB performance of Cain and Aviles and I’m not aware of good data on that.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
In that group of players I see some, but limited upside potential, and a lot of downside potential
Aviles could be an average player if given a shot. But that’s anything but certain. So far his performances have been both up and down. And then there’s injury risk. Cain could be an average player, but I don’t see more upside than that. It’s not like he was great in the minors. Kila could be a good hitter, but he’d have to be an excellent hitter in order to be more than an average player at 1B or DH. And there’s the very real possibility that he won’t ever hit well in the majors. I think Hochevar is a good bet to be an average MLB starter, as he’s performed like that in the majors already. But injuries will likely limit his upside. I think Escobar has significant upside potential. Maybe a star, maybe average, and of course maybe not even that good though. I think Mazzaro would be lucky to be more than a contributor. He was never particularly impressive in the minors, nor has he been in the majors. There’s no reason to be high on him. And then there are current or possibly future contributors like Maier, Blanco, SOS and Wood.
So I see one player with star potential, four with average potential and the rest likely no more than contributors, if that. So with one possible star and four possible average players, I don’t think it is likely that the Royals will end up getting 1 star and 2 average players. Now many of these guys could become contributors, but 0.5-1.4 WAR players aren’t very uncommon.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2011 8:27 PM EST up reply actions
I don't see how you can say that Aviles doesn't have star potential
when he’s already produced at that level over a full year. His only uninjured MLB year, he generated 4.0 fWAR in 100 games.
As far as injury risk, although he obviously has one major injury, in the minors he was very durable, playing at least 125 games every year.
With Cain’s rookie performance, obviously we’re projecting a much smaller sample, which is trouble, but, at least in his limited time, we was producing WAR at a star rate.
If we consider Cain and Aviles to also have some potential for star level production in addition to Escobar, the likelihood of 1 star and 2 average goes up significantly. Like I said, I think it all comes down to how you view the potential for Cain and Aviles.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
I want to make clear that I’m not saying that the stats show that Aviles definitely doesn’t have star potential. I’m just giving my own personal opinion based on the available evidence. I could be way wrong. But here are the reasons I don’t think he legitimately has star potential for the Royals possibly contending future:
1. There’s a decent chance that Moore and Yost won’t let Aviles be a starter long-term. Hell we don’t even know if they’ll have him be an everyday regular for all of 2011. And if you are a utility player or are sharing a position with another player, it’s nearly impossible to put up star-level WAR.
2. Even if he is a full-time regular long-term, it almost certainly won’t be at SS. And if he’s not at SS, he won’t get that position’s high positional adjustment.
3. His 4.0 fWAR season was in part due to what I believe is likely an aberrational UZR spike. I may be wrong, but I think he’s a decent defensive middle IFer, but not a great one. FWIW, his UZR at 2B has been below average. But that is in a small sample size. I think it will go up but not to enough to help make him a star.
4. I also don’t think he’s a .360 wOBA hitter going forward.
5. Aviles turns 30 this year. So, he’s likely at least a ffew years past his peak already. For the Royals possibly contending future (2013 and beyond), Aviles is going to be 32+. His hitting may very well tail off. Based on typical aging curve data, his defense very likely will.
As for Cain, when a guy wasn’t a star in the minors, I see very, very little chance that he’ll be a star in the majors. Both could surprise me. I sure hope Moore and Yost give both of them the full-time chance they deserve.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on Mar 6, 2011 10:42 PM EST up reply actions
I appreciate the explanation
I know the danger in overweighting a small sample from a player’s first month in the majors (I guess our own Jeff Francoeur is sort of the prototype for that), but, in general, I’m inclined to overweight MLB performance relative to minor league numbers or scouting reports on tools.
But there’s a lot of value in the details of that performance, and your explanation here makes sense.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
