Post-season Prospect Lists

[bigegypt0417]

Actually, I correct myself as Nola has been good, if not very good. Randolf, MM and Haseley are the scouting errors I am talking about.

Haseley is not a scouting miss. There is no real argument to be made on that front.

[California_Dreamin]

BE...I agree with you. This misconception that Haseley was a miss is silly and misguided. As someone who SAW Trey McCall play, I know what a true "miss" looks like. For those too young to know, McCall was a Phillie 1st round pick in the early 70's who was not just bad, he was embarrassingly bad.

To this day, the Phils deny this but reports at the time [I remember this well!] indicate the Phils goofed up and called out the wrong guy, there was another player with a similar name and the team, which was still in the early stages of learning how this "draft" thing worked, made a huge mistake.

McCall HAD to stick around for a few years, you can't just cut your 1st round pick, but it was embarrassing and every teammate he had knew, just knew, this was a colossal blunder.

Quietly, without fanfare, they finally released him a few years later. That, my friends, is a true miss. To call Haseley a miss at this point has absolutely no basis in fact and actually I think he is the best of the last 3 first round picks the Phils have made and will be the likeliest to see the major leagues. And do well.

[andyb]

The issue with Haseley has been scouting reports that are a half grade lower than those from before he was drafted. From the BA Phillies chat:

Buff (Colorado): Not a lot of love for Adam Haseley, apparently. What are the chances he breaks out next when he starts fresh?

Ben Badler: The reports we got from pro scouts who saw him didn't match the amateur reports. I do think a lot of that may have been fatigue—the bat speed and overall quickness seemed down from earlier in the year—which isn't uncommon for first-year draft picks. Then throw on top of it that Haseley is a two-way guy, and I think you have to account for that. It isn't the most exciting profile for a top 10 overall pick, so if he looks like the Adam Haseley scouts saw after the draft, I'll be very concerned, but for now I'm leaning more on his pre-draft reports than what he showed after signing.

I don't know enough to go further than that comment. Clearly fatigue could be a factor in performance. But the reports from the pro scouts were a tick below the pre-draft reports and that is a concern. Haseley had a bat first / hit tool profile and if that tool is a bit worse than advertised he could easily be more of a 4th OF that does not have the power for a corner or the defense for CF.

Hopefully it is just fatigue and he comes back strong. Short season data is notoriously unreliable. But it is a data point and that is all we have now and the data point is a bit lower than it was 6 months ago.

[jimbomill]

I was hoping for Baz, Rogers, Baukauskas,, Faedo or even Hall over Haseley. WRT Haseley, andyb said it well - "I was expecting reports closer to Benintendi though from scouts and we got something less than that"

[kmc1019]

I'm definitely one of the folks critical of the Randolph-Moniak-Haseley picks, at least at this point in their careers. That's not saying they won't amount to anything. But here's where those selections are hurting the Phillies now:

Most major league regulars do not struggle in the low minors. Because our last 3 first round picks have not put up impressive stats in their short minor league careers, they are not trade assets. If any or all of them were more successful to this point, the Phillies would be much better positioned to land a Chris Archer or Danny Duffy or other #1 or #2 starter. That is why I consider them to be "misses" in the draft and to question the decision-making of the Phillies front office.

In an alternate Phillies draft universe, having a few of Garrett Whitley or Nick Senzel or Kolby Allard or Walker Buehler or A.J. Puk or Bo Bichette or Heliot Ramos at our disposal to land a top flight pitcher would make the Phils much more competitive to win in 2018 and to attract free agents beyond.

That is why the Randolph-Moniak-Haseley picks are so concerning and frustrating at this point. When a team sets out on a "build through the draft" strategy but does not have a top notch prospect after 3 consecutive years in the top 10, there must be some accountability and internal questioning of the Phillies scouting and decision-making. I challenge those defending the last 3 1st round picks to have higher expectations of the Phillies franchise, otherwise we will remain a large market team that sees a playoff drought continue indefinitely and for no good reason.

[bigegypt0417]

Hopefully it is just fatigue and he comes back strong. Short season data is notoriously unreliable. But it is a data point and that is all we have now and the data point is a bit lower than it was 6 months ago.

A valid point to make if you ignore everything else you read from the scouting report you posted.

[bigegypt0417]

In an alternate Phillies draft universe, having a few of Garrett Whitley or Nick Senzel or Kolby Allard or Walker Buehler or A.J. Puk or Bo Bichette or Heliot Ramos at our disposal to land a top flight pitcher would make the Phils much more competitive to win in 2018 and to attract free agents beyond.

So basically your point is to cherry pick the great prospects that were chosen after the Phillies drafted and then use them as an example of top flight prospects we'd use to trade for older and more expensive veterans?

[allentown]

Apart from the hit tools not YET seeming to match the Phillies analyses on 3 draft days, the strangest thing about the last 3 drafts is that we took 3 OFs, when we had Ortiz and Quinn and the other young OFs on the ML team. Especially strange given the new administrations stated goal to grow our own pitchers and acquire position players from outside the organization. If we were going to take a position player, 3B and C were the positions of need. Yes, I know, and I agree, BPA, but... it is far from obvious that we took BPA. Clearly, we were going for a 1-2-3 round trifecta with Moniak and Gillick loved Moniak.

[bigegypt0417]

Apart from the hit tools not YET seeming to match the Phillies analyses on 3 draft days, the strangest thing about the last 3 drafts is that we took 3 OFs, when we had Ortiz and Quinn and the other young OFs on the ML team. Especially strange given the new administrations stated goal to grow our own pitchers and acquire position players from outside the organization. If we were going to take a position player, 3B and C were the positions of need. Yes, I know, and I agree, BPA, but... it is far from obvious that we took BPA. Clearly, we were going for a 1-2-3 round trifecta with Moniak and Gillick loved Moniak.

I would probably give them a pass for the fact that they've done a pretty good job of augmenting their offense heavy early picks with some very exciting LA pitching talent.

But for a team that stated the cultivation of pitching it is an odd pattern.

[andyb]

A valid point to make if you ignore everything else you read from the scouting report you posted.

Actually no. What I said was that the scouting reports were less good. I also noted the possible reasons. So it is kind of your post that ignores what I said. There are multiple reports on Haseley that were inferior to the pre-draft reports. That is indisputable. There are extenuating circumstances, but the fact remains that his stats from both Williamsport (730 OPS) and Lakewood (694 OPS) were not what you expect from an outfielder with an offensive profile drafted 7th overall.

I noted the scouting reports and the possible reasons why. That seems completely fair. Just as it is fair to note than an outfielder drafted 7th did not put up an 800 OPS in short season ball. Limited data points are all we have, but high draft picks are supposed to struggle less, especially when their polish was one of their strengths.

[julio]

Hopefully it is just fatigue and he comes back strong. Short season data is notoriously unreliable. But it is a data point and that is all we have now and the data point is a bit lower than it was 6 months ago.

A valid point to make if you ignore everything else you read from the scouting report you posted.

What we don't know from the Ben Badler comment that andyb quoted is how widespread the "pro scouts' view" really is - and for that matter, how consistent the "amateur reports" Badler references were. How many reports did Badler get from pro scouts? Given his language, I would assume "more than one," since he used the plural; but that could be two dozen... or it could be two.

My recommendation concerning Haseley is simply "wait for the data." Yes, we have a bit; but not enough to form a conclusion. So we form a "preliminary conclusion?" And that preliminary conclusion then colors any future analysis we attempt, because (consciously or not) we don't want to recognize that our preliminary conclusion may have been wrong - and none of us wants to be wrong, or to be shown to be wrong.

Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, from A Scandal in Bohemia: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Concern about Moniak's progress? Yeah, OK, I see where that comes from. Concern about the Randolph selection? Yes... there were some concerns (about position, etc.) from the time he was drafted. But concern about Haseley, at this point? That seems to me to be driven by a need to be concerned; about a need to "include" Haseley to bolster a generalized argument about "bad drafting."

Wait for the data; don't latch onto sketchy, limited information to try to support a preferred argument.

[andyb]

What we don't know from the Ben Badler comment that andyb quoted is how widespread the "pro scouts' view" really is - and for that matter, how consistent the "amateur reports" Badler references were. How many reports did Badler get from pro scouts? Given his language, I would assume "more than one," since he used the plural; but that could be two dozen... or it could be two.

You are cherry-picking here and ignoring the forest for the trees. Haseley was not ranked in the Baseball Prospectus Phillies top 10. So they agree also. He is showing up behind many of his peers from the past draft on these top 100 lists if he makes them at all.

Yes, I only showed one quote from BA. Fangraphs has said similar things too. BP does not like him as a prospect as much any more.

Question for you - find me a neutral source that likes Haseley now as much as when he was drafted. Or maybe revisit that Sherlock Holmes quote a bit in your own post.

[flyers19rw]

Kolby Allard

The Phillies are going to rue not taking Allard for a long time no matter whatever Randolph does. He was supposed to be Cole Hamels 2.0 and a definite organizational need but the organization passed over him. Interestingly, like Hamels, Allard had had physical issues in H.S. that he would be able to overcome by the Phillies, unlike with Cole, let him pass by. A major error by the scouting department.

[bigegypt0417]

A valid point to make if you ignore everything else you read from the scouting report you posted.

Actually no. What I said was that the scouting reports were less good. I also noted the possible reasons. So it is kind of your post that ignores what I said. There are multiple reports on Haseley that were inferior to the pre-draft reports. That is indisputable. There are extenuating circumstances, but the fact remains that his stats from both Williamsport (730 OPS) and Lakewood (694 OPS) were not what you expect from an outfielder with an offensive profile drafted 7th overall.

I noted the scouting reports and the possible reasons why. That seems completely fair. Just as it is fair to note than an outfielder drafted 7th did not put up an 800 OPS in short season ball. Limited data points are all we have, but high draft picks are supposed to struggle less, especially when their polish was one of their strengths.

Well...the two points that he said in his write-up were bat speed and overall quickness. Two factors that would absolutely be attributed to the fatigue of a two way player. Badlers articles is short on real information but the two issues he pointed to can be explained by reasons other than diminished skill.

[julio]

You are cherry-picking here and ignoring the forest for the trees.

I'm cherry-picking? I responded to the data you referenced, that's all. If you were basing your argument on a broader set of opinions... you should have said that, eh?

I stand by my suggestion that it's simply premature to be drawing conclusions (or "preliminary" ones) about Haseley. I mean, I understand that people who get paid to publish such conclusions have to say something; I don't understand why the rest of us treat those published opinions (all based on limited real data - as if these people "know something," as oppose to these people have column inches (literal or figurative) to fill.

Wait for the data. You may be right about Haseley, or you may not. But IMHO, you don't have enough data at this point to support anything other than, frankly, a guess.

[andyb]

Well...the two points that he said in his write-up were bat speed and overall quickness. Two factors that would absolutely be attributed to the fatigue of a two way player. Badlers articles is short on real information but the two issues he pointed to can be explained by reasons other than diminished skill.

It is just a chat comment. But we also have stats from 2017. And now prospect rankings. So even though Badler is not revealing his sources in a chat comment, there is some other data behind this.

Is your point that we should ignore all this and assume Haseley is as good as advertised? Or my position that he was a bit disappointing last year and we should note that even if it is possible that there are reasons behind that and he could easily end up as good as advertised. Completely ignoring a negative data point does not seem right to me.

[andyb]

I'm cherry-picking? I responded to the data you referenced, that's all. If you were basing your argument on a broader set of opinions... you should have said that, eh?

Other prospect rating sources agree though. It is not just BA.

I totally get your point that we should wait to see. Nobody is making snap decisions about anything. But you are advising us to ignore some significant data points on his rankings from multiple sources. I do data analysis for a living. Every data point matters within its context. This is why people did not predict the Presidential election correctly because they essentially ignored data points that did not fit their pre-conceived notions. That is kind of what you are advising.

[julio]

Nobody is making snap decisions about anything.

Again... You aren't, and I'm down with that. But some other comments here...

I also agree that all data has some additive value. But we have to be careful - we have a limited amount of 2017 data, and then a set of observations by an unknown number of scouts. We have a set of rankings in off-season lists - but these rankings are to some extent at least based on the same underlying data - the 2017 stats and some scouting reports. The people behind these "top 100" lists haven't all seen Haseley (or his peers) play; certainly haven't seen him (them) play a great deal. We have to be careful not to assume that a dozen written opinions about Haseley (or anything, for that matter) are independent - when they could all be based on the same limited data set.

We see this all the time with rumors about trades and signings. One source report something (or speculates!). That report is picked up by a dozen other writers... and pretty soon the story is treated as "must be true, because everybody is reporting it."

I'm skeptical that we have enough real data to draw much of any conclusion, that's all. You're clearly aware of that; but I'm not so convinced about some others.

[bigegypt0417]

Well...the two points that he said in his write-up were bat speed and overall quickness. Two factors that would absolutely be attributed to the fatigue of a two way player. Badlers articles is short on real information but the two issues he pointed to can be explained by reasons other than diminished skill.

It is just a chat comment. But we also have stats from 2017. And now prospect rankings. So even though Badler is not revealing his sources in a chat comment, there is some other data behind this.

Is your point that we should ignore all this and assume Haseley is as good as advertised? Or my position that he was a bit disappointing last year and we should note that even if it is possible that there are reasons behind that and he could easily end up as good as advertised. Completely ignoring a negative data point does not seem right to me.

My point is that we don't ignore anything.

We don't ignore the small sample size, we don't ignore the "downgrades" you point to are attributed to fatigue, we don't ignore that the point people are trying to make is that the Phillies missed on another high pick.

We shouldn't ignore anything and we should not make arguments based on wildly insufficient data.

[zambonir]

That is why the Randolph-Moniak-Haseley picks are so concerning and frustrating at this point. When a team sets out on a "build through the draft" strategy but does not have a top notch prospect after 3 consecutive years in the top 10, there must be some accountability and internal questioning of the Phillies scouting and decision-making. I challenge those defending the last 3 1st round picks to have higher expectations of the Phillies franchise, otherwise we will remain a large market team that sees a playoff drought continue indefinitely and for no good reason.

The problem is we don't really know anything about the scouting and decision-making over the past three years, and they were different every year. Year 1, no Klentak. Year 2, a combination of Klentak and the staff he inherited. Only last year can be viewed as a total product of the new organization, and there have been (and should be more) changes, whether due to general shifts in philosophy or a decision that the 2015 and 2016 drafts were not great (more likely the former). I think that given Klentak has chosen to retain Almaraz and Jordan and Proefrock and obviously would have been very hands-on with the 1-1 he he is no less accountable for the development of this group, but it's also true that he inherited a pretty bad situation, and had nothing to do with the Randolph pick. So he and his team are on the clock, but it hasn't been ticking long.