2018 MLB Draft

[Quin]

It also probably stands to reason that Nellie would have a few more Ks and a bit more pop with the evolution of the game.

 

But still, he would have a 70+ hit tool, if not an 80.

 

Would you take this with your pick:

 

Hit: 75

Power: 30

Run: 50

Field: 60

Arm: 50 (I have no idea how to rank Nellie's arm, not having seen him play)

 

I'm basically imagining Yolmer Sanchez (thanks DA for the comp) but with elite hitting.

[bmags]

It also probably stands to reason that Nellie would have a few more Ks and a bit more pop with the evolution of the game.

 

But still, he would have a 70+ hit tool, if not an 80.

 

Would you take this with your pick:

 

Hit: 75

Power: 30

Run: 50

Field: 60

Arm: 50 (I have no idea how to rank Nellie's arm, not having seen him play)

 

I'm basically imagining Yolmer Sanchez (thanks DA for the comp) but with elite hitting.

 

 

I think the thing for me is having no power with a great hit tool is a bit like having a great offensive skillset with no defensive skills. You can do it and be successful, but you have very little margin for error in those tools.

[steveno89]

It also probably stands to reason that Nellie would have a few more Ks and a bit more pop with the evolution of the game.

 

But still, he would have a 70+ hit tool, if not an 80.

 

Would you take this with your pick:

 

Hit: 75

Power: 30

Run: 50

Field: 60

Arm: 50 (I have no idea how to rank Nellie's arm, not having seen him play)

 

I'm basically imagining Yolmer Sanchez (thanks DA for the comp) but with elite hitting.

 

I'm far too young to have seen him play, but a 75 grade hit tool is beyond ELITE. That high of a grade I would reserve for players with numbers like Ichiro, Ted Williams, Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, etc. guys who flat out raked.

 

Fox's grades would likely end up looking like:

 

Hit : 65

Power: 20

Run: 50

Field: 60

Arm: 50

 

FV: 65 player

Edited July 24, 2017 by steveno89

[Quin]

I'm far too young to have seen him play, but a 75 grade hit tool is beyond ELITE. That high of a grade I would reserve for players with numbers like Ichiro, Ted Williams, Pujols, Miguel Cabrera, etc. guys who flat out raked.

 

Fox's grades would likely end up looking like:

 

Hit : 60

Power: 20

Run: 50

Field: 60

Arm: 50

 

FV: 60 player

 

Considering how little he struck out, I have no issue giving him that stupidly high of a grade.

[bmags]

I mean we are talking about a hall of famer. 75 hit tool seems right, if he had more power he'd probably have more hits.

[southsider2k5]

I mean we are talking about a hall of famer. 75 hit tool seems right, if he had more power he'd probably have more hits.

 

You have also got to account for the fact that the era he played in was the 2nd worst era in all of baseball for hitting statistics, next to the dead ball era. You can't just throw out a .710 OPS and compare it to a .710 OPS today as if they were equal. Take Fox's MPV year. His .306 Batting average was 4th in the AL. His .770 OPS was 21st in the AL. .770 this year would rank you 48th in the AL.

 

Discussions like this are exactly why comparing stats across eras is a really bad way to value players.

[turnin' two]

This discussion was about batting, and my OPS remark is about batting, so this was not a discussion about all-around game. I am saying I don't want a hitter to emulate Fox.

 

3 times in the top 10 in OWar.

8 times in the top 10 in batting avg.

7 times in the top 10 in runs.

5 times in the top 10 in doubles

11 times in the top 10 in triples.

10 times in the top 10 in hits

13 times in the top 10 in singles (led 8 times).

9 times on the top 10 in times on base.

 

Yeah, why would you want a player to be similar to that offensively.

[maggsmaggs]

You have also got to account for the fact that the era he played in was the 2nd worst era in all of baseball for hitting statistics, next to the dead ball era. You can't just throw out a .710 OPS and compare it to a .710 OPS today as if they were equal. Take Fox's MPV year. His .306 Batting average was 4th in the AL. His .770 OPS was 21st in the AL. .770 this year would rank you 48th in the AL.

 

Discussions like this are exactly why comparing stats across eras is a really bad way to value players.

This is exactly right. I will walk my statement back somewhat in light of it. Regardless, in today's game, power and on-base skills, even with lots of K, is what I prefer from my hitters.

[OmarComing25]

You have also got to account for the fact that the era he played in was the 2nd worst era in all of baseball for hitting statistics, next to the dead ball era. You can't just throw out a .710 OPS and compare it to a .710 OPS today as if they were equal. Take Fox's MPV year. His .306 Batting average was 4th in the AL. His .770 OPS was 21st in the AL. .770 this year would rank you 48th in the AL.

 

Discussions like this are exactly why comparing stats across eras is a really bad way to value players.

That's what WAR is supposed to do, and that's why OPS+ is better to use than OPS.

[bmags]

You have also got to account for the fact that the era he played in was the 2nd worst era in all of baseball for hitting statistics, next to the dead ball era. You can't just throw out a .710 OPS and compare it to a .710 OPS today as if they were equal. Take Fox's MPV year. His .306 Batting average was 4th in the AL. His .770 OPS was 21st in the AL. .770 this year would rank you 48th in the AL.

 

Discussions like this are exactly why comparing stats across eras is a really bad way to value players.

 

Yeah, good point. I think the broader point could be made with a player like Tony Gwinn. Tony Gwynn was incredible.

 

But would you rather try and scout to find the next Tony Gwynn, an incredibly rare player, or the next Trout? I'd try to find Trout, because what makes him incredible is he's like 5% better than the next best player at everything. But if you find a guy who is flawed in some area he could still be pretty good.

 

Whereas if you are shooting for a bunch of tony gwynns, when their hit tool is likely less it may be a hardpressed MLB regular.

 

That's what I'm taking away from this anyway. But I'll never specifically turn away a player with a skillset like that, any plus tool is worth investigating. Just not wanting to make a scouting philosophy of finding more players like that.

[Dominikk85]

Btw fox has almost 50 WAR, I would take that from any of the sox prospects. I'm not saying it is impossible to be productive without power, ichiro is a hall of famer with not much power but it is a lot harder to do today and the easiest way to be productive is hitting 25 plus homers with some walks and not to high Ks.

 

Every extreme profile whether it is low power with high average or high power with lots of Ks is risky because it means that your strengths have to be extremely good. The safest way is to be balanced with ok power and ok contact because then one thing can become a little worse and you are still not totally useless.

[Lillian]

Thanks for all of your input, gentlemen. It's an interesting discussion. Statistical analysis leaves out a few things, for example;

Fox was terrific at executing the hit and run, something else that is not emphasized nearly as much, now.

[fathom]

Kelenic been impressing people. He's in the UA game at wrigley in an hour

 

http://www.baseballamerica.com/draft/under...otes/?amphtml=1

[witesoxfan]

It also probably stands to reason that Nellie would have a few more Ks and a bit more pop with the evolution of the game.

 

But still, he would have a 70+ hit tool, if not an 80.

 

Would you take this with your pick:

 

Hit: 75

Power: 30

Run: 50

Field: 60

Arm: 50 (I have no idea how to rank Nellie's arm, not having seen him play)

 

I'm basically imagining Yolmer Sanchez (thanks DA for the comp) but with elite hitting.

 

Ozzie Albies

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

Of course, power hitters strike out, and that's fine. However, little guys like Madrigal might be better served forgetting about hitting homers.

I understand all of your points and recognize that the game has changed. That does not negate the point regarding choking up. It didn't seem to hurt Bonds' and he was the definition of a "power hitter".

 

At any rate, don't mind me. I'm just a "dinosaur". Much about the game is very different from when I first became a fan, in the 50's.

Perhaps there is just no longer any place in the game, for a hitter like "Little Nellie".

You are an amazing fan. There are literally no woman on this board posting besides you and you are still talking baseball in your 70's ? with a bunch of new age analysts. Loving the history of the game is why I like Hawk Harrelson. How could I not miss hearing about guys like Ted Williams or Joe Dimaggio from a guy who experienced much of it first hand ?

 

You are no dinosaur . You are a rare gem or a fine wine. Your perspective is much appreciated.

[Lillian]

You are an amazing fan. There are literally no woman on this board posting besides you and you are still talking baseball in your 70's ? with a bunch of new age analysts. Loving the history of the game is why I like Hawk Harrelson. How could I not miss hearing about guys like Ted Williams or Joe Dimaggio from a guy who experienced much of it first hand ?

 

You are no dinosaur . You are a rare gem or a fine wine. Your perspective is much appreciated.

 

Thank you. That is very kind and much appreciated.

Baseball, even with all of its changes, is still the most beautiful game, ever devised.

[Lillian]

Bringing this discussion back to the 2018 Draft; I'm leaning toward Singer or Kumar Rocker, with our pick. By adding that one more top of the rotation starter, the future staff isn't going to need all that much offense. It will be interesting to see what kind of a Junior year he has at Florida.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Lillian

[Chicago White Sox]

Bringing this discussion back to the 2018 Draft; I'm leaning toward Singer or Kumar Rocker, with our pick. By adding that one more top of the rotation starter, the future staff isn't going to need all that much offense.

I personally think we get diminishing returns with more pitching. We already have a glut of starters in the pipeline and adding another high end one means someone like Hansen or Giolito loses a potential opportunity. Now, if Singer is hands down the best player, by all means take him, but if it's close I'd definitely lean position player. An elite SS prospect like Turang would be a huge get for the system and provide us with a potential impact player a few years into our competive window.

[Dominikk85]

I personally think we get diminishing returns with more pitching. We already have a glut of starters in the pipeline and adding another high end one means someone like Hansen or Giolito loses a potential opportunity. Now, if Singer is hands down the best player, by all means take him, but if it's close I'd definitely lean position player. An elite SS prospect like Turang would be a huge get for the system and provide us with a potential impact player a few years into our competive window.

 

I would also prefer a middle infielder but if there is not a high level one left I would prefer another TOR prospect over another corner type slugger.

 

You can never have enough pitchers and middle infielders.

[Lillian]

I would be alright with a top level SS and I agree that we should not take any more corner outfield, or infield sluggers. However, having a dominant rotation, 1 through 5 and a lights out bullpen would be incredible.

[Dominikk85]

I think it was good that they got the sluggers because it means you at least likely get 2-3 mlb bats who can slug a little and get on base. Ideally you have those guys at premium positions but having them at the corners is better than nothing,those guys are relatively safe.

 

But now it is really enough of those types, they say there is a spot for a guy that can hit but it gets a lot easier to find a spot for a premium athlete.

 

Of course the athletes had their failures with athletes who can't hit and it was good they got polished hitters but at top3 overall I think they might be able to get a guy who is an athlete AND can hit already.

[Quin]

If there are two #1 overall caliber talents that the Sox have tied on their board, I'd like them to differ to college before HS and hitter before pitcher.

 

But if they have a HS pitcher #1 and a college bat #2, go with the #1. Get the most premium talent possible and figure the rest out later.

[Lillian]

I just watched this YouTube replay of Singer, pitching in this year's College World Series. That two-seam fastball, running in and down to right handed hitters, is a terrific

offering. That should play vs. Big League hitters. It's very impressive. I watched the first 6 innings:

 

 

I have long believed, and asserted on this forum, that it should be easier to evaluate a pitcher, than a hitter. You watch a guy with a sound mechanical delivery, a ball that has velocity, movement and that is well commanded, and you can be pretty confident that any hitter would be really challenged to successfully square it up. Then you mix in an assortment of other plus pitches and it seems much easier to project how he would perform, at higher levels. You watch the pitch and think, I don't care who he'd face, he's going to be tough to hit.

 

By contrast, you see these young hitters, who have never faced really tough pitching, and it is virtually impossible to know how they would do. Trying to evaluate them, hitting against significantly lesser quality pitching, just seems like a very daunting task. The hitter may have a beautiful swing and a lot of bat speed, but that won't guarantee that he will be able to employ those tools successfully against Big League pitching.

 

In other words; the pitcher's arsenal can be evaluated, irrespective of just how successful he was vs. the hitters. It is what it is. It's not simply that he dominates hitters of lesser ability. You can discern that his stuff would be hard for anyone to hit. Contrasty, a hitter's performance depends upon the quality of the pitches, he's facing. He could look great against lesser quality pitching. Heck, he could look like Ted Williams in batting practice and yet be totally inept vs. a good pitcher. You just can't know, until he faces one.

Edited August 6, 2017 by Lillian

[oldsox]

Does anybody here have info on the high school SS prospect Turang?

[Jerksticks]

Does anybody here have info on the high school SS prospect Turang?

I think he only struck out once last season.

 

I just doubt the Sox take a 6' 165lb highschool kid with the first pick. He could fill out some by next year but seems risky.