Luis Robert to Start Season in A+

[Chicago White Sox]

5 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

I don't think he is saying the team is suppressing his value to hurt him or anything like that, but that his trade value is suppressed as compared to if he were pushed to higher levels.

Look at it this way: regardless of how good he is and what that "trade value" should be, who is going to trade for an older player at the lower levels? Rebuilding teams will likely want younger players with higher upsides/longer time frames. Teams that are competing are going to want upper level talent that can quickly be plugged in to their ML roster. A college prospect at the lower levels without a huge upside doesn't really fit either of those categories and its impossible to fit one, but he does have the ability to fit the other. So, if this is a prospect that is not essential to your org and is unlikely to actually contribute to your ML team, it makes sense to push them if it will make them a more valuable asset.

Exactly...summed it up better than I could.  Thanks!

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

17 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

It’s the problem with numbers, people can use them any which way to support their agenda.  If you focused on top 200 prospects, the average age per league would look very much different.

No. They wouldnt. I would link the piece breaking this down, but apparently people hate statistics here for some odd reasons.

If the average rookie age is 24.5, then the average A+ age being 22.5 makes complete sense. And given that the vast majority of debuts are made by legit prospects, it shows that no... the top 200 are not coming up significantly younger. Maybe the top 5.

Edited March 29, 2019 by Look at Ray Ray Run

[southsider2k5]

12 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

I don't think he is saying the team is suppressing his value to hurt him or anything like that, but that his trade value is suppressed as compared to if he were pushed to higher levels.

Look at it this way: regardless of how good he is and what that "trade value" should be, who is going to trade for an older player at the lower levels? Rebuilding teams will likely want younger players with higher upsides/longer time frames. Teams that are competing are going to want upper level talent that can quickly be plugged in to their ML roster. A college prospect at the lower levels without a huge upside doesn't really fit either of those categories and its impossible to fit one, but he does have the ability to fit the other. So, if this is a prospect that is not essential to your org and is unlikely to actually contribute to your ML team, it makes sense to push them if it will make them a more valuable asset.

He isn't going to lose a dime of value based on this.  If he hits, he moves up.  It really is that easy.  If he doesn't, it was going to be worse at a higher level.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

Saying Steele Walker is not an essential prospect because there are higher ranked outfielders in the system is not how successful organizations operate. Steele Walker will not become expendable until the Sox have 3 + MLB of'ers. As of today, hey have zero.

[GenericUserName]

37 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

He isn't going to lose a dime of value based on this.  If he hits, he moves up.  It really is that easy.  If he doesn't, it was going to be worse at a higher level.

I'm not saying he has to go straight to AAA and we let him sink or swim, just that different caliber of prospects are likely to have different schedules. While guys like Robert and Jimenez will be/were given ample time to adjust to every level, guys like Steele Walker or Luis Gonzalez might be pushed quicker so they can reach a level where their value can be capitalized on.

[southsider2k5]

4 minutes ago, GenericUserName said:

I'm not saying he has to go straight to AAA and we let him sink or swim, just that different caliber of prospects are likely to have different schedules. While guys like Robert and Jimenez will be/were given ample time to adjust to every level, guys like Steele Walker or Luis Gonzalez might be pushed quicker so they can reach a level where their value can be capitalized on.

Starting off at Kannapolis isn't a death sentence.  This isn't permanent.  If he hits, he will get pushed.

[The Sir]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No they're not. AAA is where organizational players go. The average age of someone in AAA is 28. Every single player in high A is younger than 26. 

24.5 is the average age of a rookie. Expecting a college draftee to debut by 22 or 23 leaves pretty much zero developmental time and unless you're a huge draft pick you're not going to get moved up that fast regardless.

And no, there are thousands of MLB rookies. A few outliers are not inflating the number.

Matt Tomshaw was at AA last year. 29 years old. I might have been wrong to call them "org players", but at WS last year, we had Nolan Brown, Mikey Duarte, JJ Muno, Zach Remillard, Danny Dopico, Drew Hasler, Mike Morrison, Ricardo Pinto (all aged 24), Yermin Mercedes, Connor Walsh, Kyle Kubat (all 25), Tanner Banks (26), and Cameron Seitzer (28). We had Blake Battenfield, Matt Foster, John Parke, Joe Mockbee, Yelmison Peralta, and Devan Watts, who were all 23. None of these guys can be considered prospects. They all drive the average age up. So yes, if we're thinking X prospect is on track because the average age of Y level is Z, we will probably be wrong because there are a lot of guys playing at Y level who are older and never expected to be in the actual show.

On the last part, there were 247 MLB debuts last year. Their median age was 24.3 years. But again, my entire theory is that serious prospects should be ahead of Ray Black, Sherman Johnson, and Jon Berti (all who debuted at age 28 last year). I don't have time to give an average and median age of top 100 prospects that were in last year's debut group, but a quick glance justifies my position. Soto, Acuna, Bryse Wilson, Mike Soroka, Allard, Urias, Torres, Sheffield, Tucker, Kopech, Kyle Wright, Billy McKinney, Reid-Foley, Kohl Stewart, Dakota Hudson, Scott, Kingery, all debuted a year or more in advance of that median age. Good ol' Tyler Beede is actually one spot in front of the median guy. Above the median, only seven guys of 123 were drafted in the first round (none higher than 19th). Below the median age, 21 of 124 were first round picks.

So, whether you look at median or average, highly touted prospects should and do debut at significantly younger ages. We can talk about average ages of MiLB levels, and average age of MLB debuts, but that is generally driven up by less touted and talented players whose contributions will end up being far less notable.

Edited March 29, 2019 by The Sir

[Quin]

5 minutes ago, The Sir said:

Matt Tomshaw was at AA last year. 29 years old. I might have been wrong to call them "org players", but at WS last year, we had Nolan Brown, Mikey Duarte, JJ Muno, Zach Remillard, Danny Dopico, Drew Hasler, Mike Morrison, Ricardo Pinto (all aged 24), Yermin Mercedes, Connor Walsh, Kyle Kubat (all 25), Tanner Banks (26), and Cameron Seitzer (28). We had Blake Battenfield, Matt Foster, John Parke, Joe Mockbee, Yelmison Peralta, and Devan Watts, who were all 23. None of these guys can be considered prospects. They all drive the average age up. So yes, if we're thinking X prospect is on track because the average age of Y level is Z, we will probably be wrong because there are a lot of guys playing at Y level who are older and never expected to be in the actual show.

On the last part, there were 247 MLB debuts last year. Their median age was 24.3 years. But again, my entire theory is that serious prospects should be ahead of Ray Black, Sherman Johnson, and Jon Berti (all who debuted at age 28 last year). I don't have time to give an average and median age of top 100 prospects that were in last year's debut group, but a quick glance justifies my position. Soto, Acuna, Bryse Wilson, Mike Soroka, Allard, Urias, Torres, Sheffield, Tucker, Kopech, Kyle Wright, Billy McKinney, Reid-Foley, Kohl Stewart, Dakota Hudson, Scott, Kingery, all debuted a year or more in advance of that median age. Good ol' Tyler Beede is actually one spot in front of the median guy. Above the median, only five guys of 123 were drafted in the first round (none higher than 19th). Below the median age, 21 of 124 were first round picks.

So, whether you look at median or average, highly touted prospects should and do debut at significantly younger ages. We can talk about average ages of MiLB levels, and average age of MLB debuts, but that is generally driven up by less touted and talented players whose contributions will end up being far less notable.

Battenfield and Foster are the fringiest of fringe guys, but they definitely still have prospect status. 

[The Sir]

55 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No. They wouldnt. I would link the piece breaking this down, but apparently people hate statistics here for some odd reasons.

If the average rookie age is 24.5, then the average A+ age being 22.5 makes complete sense. And given that the vast majority of debuts are made by legit prospects, it shows that no... the top 200 are not coming up significantly younger. Maybe the top 5.

There's no way to disprove this absolutely scientifically, but look at that list I linked in my last post. Of those 247, do you think the "vast majority" are "legit prospects"? Only 28 of them were first round draft picks at any point (and some of those have long surrendered the hype they once had). And yes, SoxTalk, I know that legit prospects come into existence in other ways, but that's still not going to push us into "vast majority" territory. Frankly, I think many more people debut who are never expected to be serious contributors than those who are.

[The Sir]

2 minutes ago, Quin said:

Battenfield and Foster are the fringiest of fringe guys, but they definitely still have prospect status. 

OK, that's fair. I still don't think it changes the point that talking about average age for any given level when talking about top prospects is a bit dishonest because that age is driven up by many players who aren't even expected to play at the top, much less contribute.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

When you start to argue statistics - that are a culmination of mass data - by using random individual and anecdotal evidence to support your cause I tend to dismiss it. 

The importance of a prospect is to either be younger or equal to the age of your peers at your level. No one discounts Luis Gonzalez because he put up those numbers at A+ at 22 years old. No one. 

[Jack Parkman]

1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

When you start to argue statistics - that are a culmination of mass data - by using random individual and anecdotal evidence to support your cause I tend to dismiss it. 

The importance of a prospect is to either be younger or equal to the age of your peers at your level. No one discounts Luis Gonzalez because he put up those numbers at A+ at 22 years old. No one. 

Arguable, at the very least. Maybe you can take into account the Sox having a ridiculous number of legit OF prospects, but there are plenty of people who'd argue what Gonzalez did at age 23(get that right) at A+ isn't that impressive. 

Edited March 29, 2019 by Jack Parkman

[Dominikk85]

1 hour ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

No, Gonzalez is not old for his levels. He's just outside the top 120 or so because his tools arent loud enough for some and some are uncertain about him in CF (I think those uncertainties are unfounded). 22 at high A is not old. 

If he throws up an 860 OPS between AA and AAA this year you'll see him on every top 100 list. Guys like him are forced to prove it more because he's solid across the board but not great anywhere. 

Also, let's worry about one OF prospect proving they belong first before we fill out all positions prematurely. The Sox arent exactly a team that should be worried or consider themselves to have an embarrassment of riches at any position.

Gonzalez isn't 22, he is 23.5 years old which is old for an A ball prospect. It isn't much above average but most of the older ones aren't real prospects but roster fillers.

He will be 24 in AAA ball. Still can become a top100 but then he absolutely needs to destroy AA and AAA.

Edited March 29, 2019 by dominik-keul@gmx.de

[The Sir]

10 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

When you start to argue statistics - that are a culmination of mass data - by using random individual and anecdotal evidence to support your cause I tend to dismiss it. 

The importance of a prospect is to either be younger or equal to the age of your peers at your level. No one discounts Luis Gonzalez because he put up those numbers at A+ at 22 years old. No one. 

Then come up with an objective definition for “legit prospect” and I’ll go through the 247 debuts last year and tell you how many fit into that definition. I promise it won’t be a vast majority.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

11 minutes ago, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

Gonzalez isn't 22, he is 23.5 years old which is old for an A ball prospect. It isn't much above average but most of the older ones aren't real prospects but roster fillers.

He will be 24 in AAA ball. Still can become a top100 but then he absolutely needs to destroy AA and AAA.

He was 22.5 last year for his season. Why are we talking about his current age when discussing his production last year?

He will be 23 for this season and at AA.

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

7 minutes ago, The Sir said:

Then come up with an objective definition for “legit prospect” and I’ll go through the 247 debuts last year and tell you how many fit into that definition. I promise it won’t be a vast majority.

Why would we go through 247 when the data sample I used is of nearly 10,000 players? The smaller the sample the greater the variance. 

If you think the majority of prospects debut at 23 or younger you are greatly mistaken.

[southsider2k5]

I can't ever recall seeing an evaluation that said something like if only he had put up those numbers at 22 instead of 23.

Again, there is absolutely nothing permanent about this assignment. There is zero reason why Walker can't move up relatively quickly.  It wouldn't shock me if he finished at AA this season if he hits, as those guys in front of him move to Charlotte and Chicago. Then all of this handwringing over a half of a year is meaningless. 

[The Sir]

3 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Why would we go through 247 when the data sample I used is of nearly 10,000 players? The smaller the sample the greater the variance. 

If you think the majority of prospects debut at 23 or younger you are greatly mistaken.

247 players debuted last year. 28 of them were 1st round picks. 21 of those 28 were younger than the median age of 24.3. So yes, generally, top prospects are going to hit the show at 23 or younger.

[Chicago White Sox]

31 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

When you start to argue statistics - that are a culmination of mass data - by using random individual and anecdotal evidence to support your cause I tend to dismiss it. 

The importance of a prospect is to either be younger or equal to the age of your peers at your level. No one discounts Luis Gonzalez because he put up those numbers at A+ at 22 years old. No one. 

What statistics have you shown?  Until you show me the average age of top 200 prospects by level (or something similar) there is nothing to dismiss because your sample is littered with organizational filler that has zero trade value.

And plenty of people / publications have discounted Luis Gonzalez’s numbers b/c of his age.  Saying otherwise is simply disingenuous.

[illinilaw08]

11 minutes ago, The Sir said:

247 players debuted last year. 28 of them were 1st round picks. 21 of those 28 were younger than the median age of 24.3. So yes, generally, top prospects are going to hit the show at 23 or younger.

Even if they are college guys?  Isn't the average number of years in the minors based on age when drafted have more bearing on this discussion than age in a vacuum?  

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

8 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

What statistics have you shown?  Until you show me the average age of top 200 prospects by level (or something similar) there is nothing to dismiss because your sample is littered with organizational filler that has zero trade value.

And plenty of people / publications have discounted Luis Gonzalez’s numbers b/c of his age.  Saying otherwise is simply disingenuous.

It's not littered with organization filler, as I have already presented. Fangraphs - where I pulled the dataset from - clearly states that players should be compared to the average age of their peers at their levels in scouting circles. They don't remove some random elderly outliers from the sample set because it his minimal - at best - impact on the overall ouput. 

Show me one person or publication that has discounted a 22 year old for his production at A+. 

As I said, there's no point in furthering this discussion because once people start taking samples and breaking them down to even smaller samples, it deludes the data sets and makes them much less reliable or accurate. 

[Look at Ray Ray Run]

6 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Even if they are college guys?  Isn't the average number of years in the minors based on age when drafted have more bearing on this discussion than age in a vacuum?  

Yes, to say the average college player debuts at 23 years old is just incorrect. The average college junior is 21 years old - upon draft and graduation, the average junior will enter the minor leagues at 21-22 years old. The average college senior is 22, meaning they enter the player pool at 22 or 23 for their first 1/2 season taste of professional baseball. Juniors will likely be 22 years old their entire first year in the minors - some 23. 

[Dominikk85]

9 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Yes, to say the average college player debuts at 23 years old is just incorrect. The average college junior is 21 years old - upon draft and graduation, the average junior will enter the minor leagues at 21-22 years old. The average college senior is 22, meaning they enter the player pool at 22 or 23 for their first 1/2 season taste of professional baseball. Juniors will likely be 22 years old their entire first year in the minors - some 23. 

The average college guy certainly is older than 23 at the debut and probably older than 24.

However if you look at top100 prospects that might change.

Also you have to consider Gonzalez likely will be close to 25 when he debuts and not 23 because he first has to make it through AA and maybe AAA. 25 is not an unusual debut age but old for a top100 prospect.

[Jose Abreu]

1 hour ago, Jack Parkman said:

Arguable, at the very least. Maybe you can take into account the Sox having a ridiculous number of legit OF prospects, but there are plenty of people who'd argue what Gonzalez did at age 23(get that right) at A+ isn't that impressive. 

 

1 hour ago, dominik-keul@gmx.de said:

Gonzalez isn't 22, he is 23.5 years old which is old for an A ball prospect. It isn't much above average but most of the older ones aren't real prospects but roster fillers.

He will be 24 in AAA ball. Still can become a top100 but then he absolutely needs to destroy AA and AAA.

 

51 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

He was 22.5 last year for his season. Why are we talking about his current age when discussing his production last year?

He will be 23 for this season and at AA.

I'm not sure how this fact is debatable. Luis Gonzalez turned 23 in mid-September of last year. That means that he was 22 for the entire minor league season in 2018.

[Timmy U]

Why isn't this on the Future Sox board again?