2017 Phillies Top Prospect Lists

bigegypt0417 2017-01-10 20:38:30 UTC #121

julio:

bigegypt0417:

It's not a term if the tool is elite. that's why those with elite tools get more attention than those with mid to back of the rotation stuff.

you are trying to make it a tool like any other tool and it isn't. It's an elite tool which is why it's different. It doesn't equate to success but is more valuable.

Well, maybe.

There seems to be an assumption that velocity is a "talent" - e.g., it can't be taught/learned. A young pitcher has it, or he doesn't. Other components of pitching success (command, ability to change speeds) are assumed to be teachable, and thus less "valuable" in a prospect. (If a skill is teachable, it's assumed to be less rare, thus less valuable).

It is, howerver, debatable whether the "teachability" of command/effective changing of speeds is real - we assume a pitching prospect with great velocity can learn/develop command...and yet, often, such prospects simply cannot master these skills. We tend to define that as a "failure" - as something the prospect "could have" done, with a different approach, more effort/commitment, etc. But that seems to me to be very arbitrary - we assume that command can be learned, and then (explicitly or implicitly) fault the prospect who cannot do that.

We often see the same dichotomy with hitters. The slugger with great power? He has an "elite" talent. If he's unable to lay off the low slider, and thus strikes out too much; or if he's unable to effectively take outside pitches the other way, and thus pops out too much... we define that as a "failure to adjust" or a failure to learn - we don't recognize those particular skills/abilities as innate.

But...this is arbitrary. We define some abilities as innate (e.g., rare, e.g., "elite") and others as learnable - but we don't know that the ability to pick up the spin on a slider and lay off it is learnable - it depends on visual acuity and interpretation/reaction speed, characteristics which are unique to each individual. We don't know that the ability to interpret a pitch as "outside," and then to make a subtle change in a swing to take that pitch the other way, is learnable - that too depends on the above physical responses, which not all hitters may be capable of.

So... is Tirado's pitch velocity more valuable than Eshelman's exceptional command? Not clear to me, although I know what the conventional wisdom says.

there is a difference between calling it a talent or a tool. Velocity like speed and power is a tool. I guess that's why you hear people say you can't teach speed or velocity.

We are talking about elite tools and there are some that separate players from others.

julio 2017-01-10 20:51:40 UTC #122

You're playing a semantic game here, bigegypt0417. I specifically suggested that the assumption that certain things are "tools" (talents, abilities, whatever), and are innate, unteachable - and certain other things are "teachable," and thus less valuable - was a rather arbitrary distinction. In particular, I suggested that the assumption that the "teachable" things are in fact teachable may not be a valid assumption. You "responded" to my post (you quoted it) by quibbling over "talent" vs "tool." That's not a response.

andyb 2017-01-10 21:05:13 UTC #123

Things like command and strike zone judgement are tools even if they are more teachable tools rather than physical tools. I agree that they are often overlooked. The physical tools can't be grafted onto a player that does not have them while there is a chance that things like command and strike zone judgement can be learned over time. So there is a difference there. There are many examples of pitchers with velocity learning command and control. There are fewer examples of guys like Eshelman learning velocity (though of course there are plenty of guys that add velocity as they mature).

Bottom line for me is I'd rather have Tirado than Eshelman. Tirado may have a smaller chance of a sustained major league career but he has a much better chance of being an above average major leaguer.

xogfog 2017-01-10 21:15:27 UTC #124

Sorry if I come off like a curmudgeon for complaining, but this is a prospect list thread... Just sayin'

allentown 2017-01-10 21:26:04 UTC #125

I never interpreted the meaning of 'baseball tool' as something which was 100% ingrained from birth and couldn't improve with time, either from instruction/practice or from physical maturation. I've seen many scouting reports, in fact, which give two value for a tool: current and projected when the prospect is fully developed. We see tons of pitchers, especially skinny LA pitchers, who add bulk as they physically mature and add velocity in the process. The kid who only threw 88-89 at age 16 has developed into a 20-year old who throws 92-92 T96. We've had more than a few such guys in our system. Control/command is listed as a separate 'tool' but that also seems subject to improvement with coaching to smooth out a pitcher's motion and increase repeatability and kids finishing their growth and settling into their bodies. For hitters, most now speak of 'raw power' as a tool and we realize that lack of a 'hit tool' can lead to the big raw power of an LGJ never appearing in games. We saw Ryan Howard's raw power emerge as he moved up the farm and did better on recognizing and dealing with breaking balls. We know that the command tool and the tool of mastering a CU or curve reinforce whatever FB Velocity tool the guy has, just as a plus hit tool reinforces a plus raw power tool, to the extent that I don't think it wrong to say the hit tool enables the raw power tool, because a poor enough hit tool can reduce a 70-80 raw power to zilch value. All of the tools work together, which is why we are so enamored with 5-tool position player prospects. Speed aids a hit tool and it aids the defensive tools. Power aids the hit tool, because pitchers will have to pitch you differently.

No one tool, even if it legitimately grades out at a 70 is enough. We will get to see how well Randolph does with his hit tool if he can only play in LF and only field adequately there and if he doesn't develop more power. Aumont had great stuff, both FB velocity/movement and breaking ball, but about a 30 for a fully developed control/command tool ended all that. I don't think there is any one tool that by itself can guarantee success for a hitter or pitcher. They are like the distance on one axis in a multi-dimensional graph of how you rate on all tools. If you're lying on one axis, even if you are quite far from the origin on that axis, you are unlikely to make it.

I guess this all started with debate on Cordero and Eshelman. Eshelman adds deception as well as control/command to make his FB play up. His biggest need seems more a plus 3rd pitch more than added FB velocity. Cordero didn't fail because of lack of control. He failed because of injury. He finished the 2015 season in Reading and had a very good walk rate of just above 2/9 with a K-rate of 9,5/9. Then he was hurt. He didn't pitch last year until July, starting in the GCL. When he came up to Reading, his walk rate was actually below 2.0/9 in SSS, but at all the levels in which he pitched in 2016, his K-rate was very pedestrian. I believe the Phillies gave up on him, because they didn't expect his arm to come back all the way. From what he did in Reading in 2015 he looked like a top closer prospect, consistently throwing 97-101 mph and generally throwing strikes.

allentown 2017-01-10 21:28:35 UTC #126

Well, this exchange discusses how we extrapolate minor league stats to major league performance and how we balance performance/age/level against scouting evaluation of tools, which tools are most important, and if there are minimum levels for various tools, below which good minor league performance cannot carry over into MLB or even AAA.

xogfog 2017-01-10 21:49:08 UTC #127

Then it sounds like that discussion should be in the minor league discussion thread as it applies to every minor league player in the system and not just the prospects as defined in prospect lists. There just has been bunch of recent discussion about tools in the abstract not related to any prospect.

julio 2017-01-10 21:57:24 UTC #128

On the one hand, I tend to agree with xogfog's observation that the whole "velocity' discussion is off-topic here. I might add that (IMHO) it's pretty much run its course - unless certain posters feel compelled to repeat themselves over and over.

On the other hand, it's not as if this debate has stepped on a lively discussion of prospect lists. Two links to Matt's ongoing reveal of his Top 50 have been posted, but there really hasn't been any discussion of Matt's rankings (it may be a tad early, given that Matt has started at the bottom (#50) and not given us much as yet!). One "Atta boy, Matt" post, but that's all. If the off-topic discussion were interfering with an active on-topic discussion, I'd probably move the off-topic stuff. But...

Austinfan 2017-01-10 22:06:58 UTC #129

I think once Matt's list is close to complete, there's some discussion that will occur, but right now it's just a "tease."

As far as tools v teaching, I think there are physical attributes that are innate, size, strength, speed, that can be improved somewhat through training but are primarily genetic.
However, other attributes also fall into that category, body control is harder to observe, but you see it in every sport, in baseball it's reflected by a compact swing, repeatable mechanics and command/control. Again, it can be improved with training, but it's also an innate quality that varies from prospect to prospect.

Even "baseball IQ" is primarily innate, some guys can process spatial information better than others, sure you can study film on tendencies, but some SSs with the same athletic skills as others make more plays because they react quicker and take better angles, same with OFs.

Vision is also innate, you might teach a hitter how to better process what he sees, but I doubt you can teach a hitter to pick up the spin on the ball if he doesn't have that innate talent.

The difference is that some skills are obvious, power, speed, arm strength, velocity, others are more subtle, like being able to recognize a breaking ball and have a sense where it will be when it crosses the plate, or consistently put the proper spin on a breaking ball and not throw hanging sliders. More subtle skills tend to be inferred from results, so it's harder to determine how much is innate and how much is learned, whereas once a prospect is physically mature, velocity is easily measured (though I'd say control of the movement of a 2 and 4 seam FB is more subtle than just how hard you throw it).

But even something like power is a combination of brute strength and swing technique, some hitters learn to shift their weight properly or "load their swing" and increase their power. Some pitchers learn to rework their mechanics and add velocity (remember Diekman?).

I think where this plays into prospect evaluation is similar to physical projection, trying to project how much of the player's talent is innate and how much could be modified through a good training program/coaching better mechanics/increasing their functional baseball IQ. And that's a tough call, that combines genetic physical traits, background (a lot of LA players are malnourished compared to American 16 year olds), personality (work ethic, intelligence, coachability), and some unique factors. Or put it this way, why did everyone in baseball underestimate Trout's talent?

julio 2017-01-10 22:20:53 UTC #130

You can lead a horse to water...

Which is to say, I think it's time we all try to practice a little discipline here.

I scrolled back through the thread. There was an extended discussion about Aaron Altherr (who is NOT on prospect lists), because John Sickels mentioned him, and Sickels' prospect rankings were being discussed. The Altherr discussion belonged somewhere else, and should have been there, not here. (It's not that hard - but you have to try to put your comments in the right place, and IMHO many of us don't try very hard...no, let's be frank - don't try AT ALL.)

Back on 1/3, I did move several posts that were off-topic to the general discussion thread. But the first post here, after I did that was a long post about pitching in general, that referenced several Phillies' pitchers, but NO prospects.

There's only so much I can do if posters willfully refuse to post in appropriate conversations.

bigegypt0417 2017-01-10 22:58:53 UTC #131

If I'm not mistaken it's your quibble. The 5 tools that make up how players are looked at is fairly universal. One of those tools for pitchers is velocity. If you're throwing in the mid 90's its an elite tool.

If you are 70-80 in the power tool it's an elite tool. Do you need your other tools to be fairly advanced as well? Sure but my answer was to the idea velocity is "merely" a tool. I agree when you throw in the low 90's but a guy like Tirado has an elite tool.

Austinfan 2017-01-11 00:09:37 UTC #132

Of course velocity is "merely" a tool, like power is "merely" a tool.

Cliff Lee at his peak was an elite starter, but his FB averaged around 91 MPH during his six peak seasons.
That's certainly not an "elite" tool.
But his control/command was an "elite" tool.

This no more suggests that Eshelman is going to become the RH Cliff Lee than Velasquez will become the next Roy Halladay.
Halladay was 92+ from 2007-2009 (no earlier data, but probably 93+ when he started his elite years in 2002), then 91 in 2010-11 when he was still elite.
Like a number of elite pitchers, a decade perfecting his craft allowed him to adjust as his velocity declined.

Now teams will be more patient with a high velocity pitcher ( or willing to gamble on a high velocity prospect), hoping he can develop complementary skills, but this also means that lower velocity pichers are quickly weeded out (that is, the initial prospect pool may have more low velocity pitchers, but a lower % will be drafted/signed/promoted), thus the remaining lower velocity pitchers tend to be legitimate prospects. So you'll see a spectrum in your minor league system (and among your prospect pool), high velocity pitchers who struggle in other areas, and lower velociity pitchers who have better complementary skills - because the rest are eliminated (the best end up in the Show, the rest do something else for a living).

Found this interesting Q&A for Klentak when he was the AGM for the Angels in 2015:

TS: When you look at the roster, you get the notion that the Angels look more from the ability of the players than say the tools. Coming out of the draft you see guys like Jacob Gatewood, who has tremendous power and some flashy tools, and then you have guys like Bo Way who don’t have any particular flashy tools but they play the game at a very solid level. You can see that as well on the major league roster, like Kole Calhoun, no particular outstanding tool but he plays the game at a solid level. You see prospect evaluators online who say there’s nothing stand-out about him but he still goes out there and puts up pretty solid numbers. I know the team wants to be balanced and have a mixed group of players, so it that may not be the Angels’ top philosophy but it seems like the Angels favor ability over tools

MK: We recognize that and take it very seriously, when we’re evaluating players, what the player has done, how they play the game, what kind of track record they have. I think that is absolutely correct but to say that is our philosophy on scouting amateur players? That wouldn’t be true. I think we’re never going to shy away from the guy with 80 raw power or a guy with 100 mile per hour fastball that doesn’t know where it’s going but you see the potential in him. Overall, we’re going to balance that, so we’re not going to draft 40 straight players that have tremendous upside and throw 100 but not know where it’s going. That’s not even planned for us but we’re also not going to take 40 “safe choices”, that’s not good either. We’re going to create a blend and that’s more philosophically what the Angels are about.

phillychuck 2017-01-11 01:27:23 UTC #133

At the risk of staying off-topic at least a bit, the point julio made upthread about whether what we think of as teachable skills are actually not always teachable, but at least somewhat innate, like tools are, is very insightful.

Some iconic basketball coach whose name I don't remember pointed out that we think of speed, jumping ability, lateral quickness, etc. as innate, but that he always thought of self-discipline, consistency, unselfishness, etc. as somewhat innate, too, and recruited for those things as actively as he recruited for speed, etc. He knew he couldn't teach those things, at least reliably, to all recruits. Might have been John Wooden or Dean Smith.

What if the ability to learn strike-zone judgment or the ability to learn a breaking pitch, etc, are innate "tools" that we just can't measure until a prospect succeeds or fails at those things. Kind of scary, but also kind interesting as a way of identifying a possible market inefficiency that a team could capitalize on if they could figure out how to predict teachability...

andyb 2017-01-11 15:03:52 UTC #134

Elite pitchers like Lee and Halladay also learned to manage their velocity. They could throw harder when they needed to and also saw some use in throwing 90 on 1 pitch and 93 on another pitch. Average velocity numbers do not tell the whole story with elite pitchers. Varying speeds is a hugely important part of being elite. But when Halladay could dial it up into the mid-90s 5 times a game it gave him another weapon to use without overly taxing his arm (by doing it all the time).

allentown 2017-01-11 15:08:35 UTC #135

What if a skilled optometrist could provide glasses to improve the vision of players with 'normal' sight, so that they were better able to pick up the ball and its spin right out of the pitchers hand. Certainly some of baseball hitters, like Ted Williams, were reputed to have extraordinarily good distance eyesight. Lens correction of vision does not need to stop at 20/20.

bkeich 2017-01-11 15:17:06 UTC #136

Interesting idea, but I wonder if it would really work. Your brain must also be able to perceive and use this "input". Since a person's brain is trained to act at a certain resolution I wonder if providing it with higher resolution data would work, my guess is that your brain would simply ignore or extrapolate what it was seeing into its normal flow of information. Maybe your brain can be trained to use this better vision over time by increasing the amount of synaptic tissue being used to interpret visual data.

I could be completely wrong, but I suspect that there is more to improving people in this way, the Borg probably figured this out

Austinfan 2017-01-11 15:58:25 UTC #137

Again, we're left with the question, does the ability to vary speeds (without adjusting your motion and tipping off the batter) constitute an innate or learned quality?
Halladay didn't start pitching well until 24, then made an adjustment at age 31 which caused his K rate to rise substantially despite a decline in velocity.
Could any pitcher make these adjustments, or was it a matter of having the innate talent that allowed him to make changes once he figured it out mentally.
This is why you have to take a "holistic" view of prospects, raw tools merely provide a baseline, its what the player does with those tools that matters.

Older article on effectiveness of fastballs:

"To summarize, it appears as though velocity and location matter far more than movement when it comes to fastballs. Fastballs over 95 mph are far less likely to be hit for home runs than swung on and missed (over 20x), however, fastballs between 87 to 92 mph were no different with respects to how likely they were to be hit for home runs compared to swung on for strikes (all about 10x). Fastballs on the outer edge of the plate were over 40x more likely to be swung on and missed, and fastballs down in the zone 35x. Fastballs up in the zone were not much different than fastballs in the middle of zone. For a high fastball to be effective, it must be out of the strike zone. Tailing fastballs seem to be better than cutters.

Finally, I think the take home message here is, if a pitcher is gifted enough to have a 95+ mph fastball, it probably doesn’t matter too much where they throw it. As long as they can throw it for strikes, they will be effective. Pitchers that don’t have that 95+ mph fastball can also be effective, however, they need to locate their pitches. There are still places in the strike zone they can throw their fastball and be very effective. The idea that movement on a fastball matters appears to be totally erroneous. A pitcher probably can’t live on a fastball that is 92 mph with a lot of movement if he can’t locate it. A pitcher probably can live on an 88 mph fastball with little movement as long as he can locate it. Location is far more important than movement for fastballs."

allentown 2017-01-11 16:06:44 UTC #138

Over at Phuture phillies the prospect poll is up to #20. I think it's a quite good list, although one guy snuck in because of Panamanian ballot box stuffing. I remain surprised that Jesmuel Valentin is rated so much lower than Kingery. Based on age/level/stats I think he is Kingery's equal.

andyb 2017-01-11 17:06:12 UTC #139

Scouts are pretty consistent on this so it is not just posters. IMO the difference is largely tool-based where people see more projection in Kingery's tools (and better defense). Valentin may just be one of these relatively polished players (major league pedigree) that scouts see as not being able to get much better. Kingery is a better athlete and that matters for projection.

xogfog 2017-01-11 17:26:15 UTC #140

Matt Winkelman 36-40