Why SoxTalk is the best Sox minor league site

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Link

[ThunderBolt]

Link

I knew this would come up.

[scenario]

LOL. That's almost 'Onion' worthy.

Edited May 30, 2009 by scenario

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I knew this would come up.

You saw it too?

 

If you don't mind, may I ask what in the hell either of us were doing on that forum?

[ThunderBolt]

You saw it too?

 

If you don't mind, may I ask what in the hell either of us were doing on that forum?

Given that I’m sober, I’m not sure I have a legitimate excuse. I’m actually a bit ashamed of myself, right now.

[Chisoxfn]

I will long say that I'm not certain there is another site in all of baseball with the in depth minor league knowledge of there specific team more than Soxtalk. And its a compliment to everyone on here.

[lostfan]

I will long say that I'm not certain there is another site in all of baseball with the in depth minor league knowledge of there specific team more than Soxtalk. And its a compliment to everyone on here.

lol, his comeback to your post was to say you misspelled asinine.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I will long say that I'm not certain there is another site in all of baseball with the in depth minor league knowledge of there specific team more than Soxtalk. And its a compliment to everyone on here.

 

You posted this:

 

You lost all credibility when you said Omogrosso won't pitch in the majors. The guy throws a mid 90's fastball and has upside as a potential set-up man if he suceeds. And all that other stuff is flat out assinine. Sure age matters but so do tools and baseball ability and that is what will determine whether you will succeed in the majors or not.

 

But you missed one thing! I say he lost all credibility when he listed all those pitchers and said they are "probably not going to log a week in the majors combined." Fernando Hernandez - the ex-Oakland A - was one of those pitchers, and he logged over a week in the Majors. Doh! I was hoping someone was going to pick up on that and call him out.

 

And I also think Fernando ends up getting another chance at some point, although I'd bet heavily against it being with the Sox. I still like Wassermann a lot too as a righty specialist and I think he'll spend some time in the league, but I don't see that being with the Sox either. I expect both guys to probably get traded for something very small or get released/granted minor league FA and then catch on somewhere else after an injury or bullpen implosion, then stick around a little while.

 

I agree on Omogrosso too from seeing him in ST. There was a webcast I saw once where he pitched 2 innings I think and he looked tough, plus in general I love sidearmers/submariners/3/4 guys out of the pen. Bill Melton was raving about him.

 

Link was another guy I saw, didn't look all that impressive, but supposedly the Sox really like him and of course he was nails at Birmingham last year. I like Harrell a lot if he can throw enough good strikes, but just from seeing him a couple times he appeared pretty wild in the zone. I love that career minor league HR rate though.

 

Overall I think we've got a few guys in our system with pretty good chances at becoming relievers along with a couple guys probably viewed as relievers who could end up putting it together as starters.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

Given that I’m sober, I’m not sure I have a legitimate excuse. I’m actually a bit ashamed of myself, right now.

I have no reason either. It just kind of... happened.

[False Alarm]

i dunno. i mean, yeah, the dude doesn't seem to acknowledge that age is slightly less important for pitchers, and it was ignorant of him to write off omogrosso and a couple others with no apparent idea about the book on them, but his general point is true. age relative to league is probably the most important number for a prospect when determining his chances of being an impact player. not the only number by any means, and obviously numbers shouldn't be looked at while ignoring the scouting report, but people here (and i agree this is a great minor-league resource) do sometimes seem to ignore age more than they should. (david cook excitement last year, for example.) i share his doubts about shelby--if he doesn't succeed this year he'll be 24 at AA next year, which is old for a prospect, and that'll dim his star considerably. (scenario, don't bother pointing out that 24's younger than league average [if it even is]. 24 at AA is old if you're supposed to be a major league baseball prospect.) his athleticism'd allow me to still hold out hope for him, but i wouldn't be real bullish on him at that point.

 

finally, all kinds of useful players can be found who aren't young on the prospect curve, particularly relievers like omogrosso and link, but it's tough to disagree that most impact players show up young (guys like ryan howard being the occasional exception, and he's an old-player-skills guy anyway; they tend to follow a different curve). those are the real commodities. serviceable regulars aren't very hard to find in comparison.

 

all this, btw, is why viciedo's still #2 on my chisox top 10.

[scenario]

i share his doubts about shelby--if he doesn't succeed this year he'll be 24 at AA next year, which is old for a prospect, and that'll dim his star considerably. (scenario, don't bother pointing out that 24's younger than league average [if it even is]. 24 at AA is old if you're supposed to be a major league baseball prospect.) his athleticism'd allow me to still hold out hope for him, but i wouldn't be real bullish on him at that point.

 

You're right. If Shelby stumbles at AA and repeats then you do have to question his potential.

 

Not sure what that has to do with doubting Shelby's potential in his first year of AA because he's 6 months older than other players whose futures aren't being questioned.

 

The author of the WSI article disregards talent. He lumps a whole bunch of limited talent players with no real shot at MLB together with Omogrosso, who is a legit talent... and suggests none of them have a chance to make it because of one factor... their age... which is an absolutely ridiculous argument.

 

There are alot of reasons why a player may end up at a level where he is 'older' than the average... injury (in Omogrosso's case)... college (in Shelby's case)... etc. The more important determinant, as you correctly pointed out, is whether the player is making a normal progression through the minors.

Edited May 31, 2009 by scenario

[Cali]

When your minor league section section has a picture of Kris Honel at the top, do you really expect stellar analysis?

 

 

 

[dasox24]

When your minor league section section has a picture of Kris Honel at the top, do you really expect stellar analysis?

good point

[danman31]

i dunno. i mean, yeah, the dude doesn't seem to acknowledge that age is slightly less important for pitchers, and it was ignorant of him to write off omogrosso and a couple others with no apparent idea about the book on them, but his general point is true. age relative to league is probably the most important number for a prospect when determining his chances of being an impact player. not the only number by any means, and obviously numbers shouldn't be looked at while ignoring the scouting report, but people here (and i agree this is a great minor-league resource) do sometimes seem to ignore age more than they should. (david cook excitement last year, for example.) i share his doubts about shelby--if he doesn't succeed this year he'll be 24 at AA next year, which is old for a prospect, and that'll dim his star considerably. (scenario, don't bother pointing out that 24's younger than league average [if it even is]. 24 at AA is old if you're supposed to be a major league baseball prospect.) his athleticism'd allow me to still hold out hope for him, but i wouldn't be real bullish on him at that point.

 

finally, all kinds of useful players can be found who aren't young on the prospect curve, particularly relievers like omogrosso and link, but it's tough to disagree that most impact players show up young (guys like ryan howard being the occasional exception, and he's an old-player-skills guy anyway; they tend to follow a different curve). those are the real commodities. serviceable regulars aren't very hard to find in comparison.

 

all this, btw, is why viciedo's still #2 on my chisox top 10.

Well said. I definitely feel like the majority on here are too slow to write off or greatly devalue a player. I would say age vs. level is a really important factor, but a lot of things go into properly evaluating that.

 

There are alot of reasons why a player may end up at a level where he is 'older' than the average... injury (in Omogrosso's case)... college (in Shelby's case)... etc. The more important determinant, as you correctly pointed out, is whether the player is making a normal progression through the minors.

The college argument doesn't completely fly. If you are an above average prospect out of college you rush through A ball pretty quickly (see Beckham, Danks, Fields off the top of my head). On average, college players that reach the Majors are older than the high schoolers that do, but I wouldn't say that is a good enough excuse for Shelby. He went straight to rookie ball and spent 2 full seasons in A-ball. He hasn't done anything to wow me as a prospect. If he gets it together he can be an above average 4th OF. He brings speed and defense. He could be useful, but I wouldn't expect much.

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

I've always been pessimistic about Shelby but I kept hearing great things as far as his attitude, work ethic, and baseball mentality. He's a toolsy type and those types sometimes "get it" all of the sudden and make huge strides in one year, although that doesn't happen very often, which is why I'd like to see him traded while he still has value. But the age factor isn't a big deal for me with those types. The age factor is mainly an issue IMO when a toolsy guy hits like 25 and he's not doing anything significant in Double A or above despite repeating the level (a Miguel Negron kind of thing). Age is just a factor when you look at it alongside lack of improvement at a key level.

 

The stats considering age is really flawed anyway because anytime I've ever seen this "research" it takes a ton of non-prospects into account who stick around a long time hoping for an emergency shot, as well as a lot of guys who were prospects simply because of athletic ability or having 1 very good tool (Owens, Gathright as examples). The really great prospects generally seem to move fairly quickly regardless of their age, and if they end up flaming out they still reach the Majors after being on a pretty steady path. The age s*** is really pointless.

 

Take Tim Raines Jr. for example. He signed at 18 out of high school and made his MLB debut at 21. He flamed out, but age didn't have s*** to do with it. Take George Sherrill, who I'm sure wasn't considered a prospect at age 26 pitching in the independant league, but he still obviously had a big league arm and end up flying though the minors as soon as the Mariners picked him up.

 

I think age is just a really, really short-sighted way to evaluate players overall because it doesn't take into consideration what you really should be looking at, which is ability to play the game of baseball, tools, and performance.

 

For instance, David Cook is old for his level and therefore isn't considered a prospect, but he went to rookie ball out of college and had never actually spent more than 1 full season at any level until this year when the Sox decided to put him in Birmingham for the 3rd season instead of starting him off in Triple A. Age is a dumb reason to write the guy off considering he has continued performing and advancing through the system. He has power and OBP skills, so I see no reason why he can't be at least a 4th OF in the Majors based on that. Now I don't get to see him play, so if there is a major hole somewhere in his swing that the Sox think MLB pitching will exploit but minor league pitching will not, then that would be a real reason for holding him back. But it's certainly confusing as to why this guy gets held back while Jerry Owens and DeWayne Wise are considered Major League starters.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[danman31]

The stats considering age is really flawed anyway because anytime I've ever seen this "research" it takes a ton of non-prospects into account who stick around a long time hoping for an emergency shot, as well as a lot of guys who were prospects simply because of athletic ability or having 1 very good tool (Owens, Gathright as examples). The really great prospects generally seem to move fairly quickly regardless of their age, and if they end up flaming out they still reach the Majors after being on a pretty steady path. The age s*** is really pointless.

 

Take Tim Raines Jr. for example. He signed at 18 out of high school and made his MLB debut at 21. He flamed out, but age didn't have s*** to do with it. Take George Sherrill, who I'm sure wasn't considered a prospect at age 26 pitching in the independant league, but he still obviously had a big league arm and end up flying though the minors as soon as the Mariners picked him up.

 

I think age is just a really, really short-sighted way to evaluate players overall because it doesn't take into consideration what you really should be looking at, which is ability to play the game of baseball, tools, and performance.

 

For instance, David Cook is old for his level and therefore isn't considered a prospect, but he went to rookie ball out of college and had never actually spent more than 1 full season at any level until this year when the Sox decided to put him in Birmingham for the 3rd season instead of starting him off in Triple A. Age is a dumb reason to write the guy off considering he has continued performing and advancing through the system. He has power and OBP skills, so I see no reason why he can't be at least a 4th OF in the Majors based on that. Now I don't get to see him play, so if there is a major hole somewhere in his swing that the Sox think MLB pitching will exploit but minor league pitching will not, then that would be a real reason for holding him back. But it's certainly confusing as to why this guy gets held back while Jerry Owens and DeWayne Wise are considered Major League starters.

You brought up extreme examples and my statement doesn't cover all players, it's a generalization that is typically correct. Jerry Owens was a prospect because in his 2nd full season as a pro he hit .331 in AA after skipping high-A. Tim Raines Jr. was never a big prospect and got 2 September call-ups on bad teams where he was probably called up because of his speed. I don't see how he is relevant.

 

Age is an extremely important tool to evaluate what a player's stats mean. Cook can hit the s*** out of the ball in AA, but he is older so does that mean more than Dayan holding his own in the league at 19? Probably not. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying Tim Raines Jr. hitting .256 in AAA with no power at age 21 is going to be a good player because he is young for his level.

[maggsmaggs]

You brought up extreme examples and my statement doesn't cover all players, it's a generalization that is typically correct. Jerry Owens was a prospect because in his 2nd full season as a pro he hit .331 in AA after skipping high-A. Tim Raines Jr. was never a big prospect and got 2 September call-ups on bad teams where he was probably called up because of his speed. I don't see how he is relevant.

 

Age is an extremely important tool to evaluate what a player's stats mean. Cook can hit the s*** out of the ball in AA, but he is older so does that mean more than Dayan holding his own in the league at 19? Probably not. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying Tim Raines Jr. hitting .256 in AAA with no power at age 21 is going to be a good player because he is young for his level.

As with all players, there is no set rule for evaluating prospects and most need to be taken on a case-by-case basis. But most times, a prospect who is young for his league is there because he has exceeded performance expectations at a lower level or he has enormous potential, both great signs for a young player. But like you said, there are always exceptions to the rule.

[scenario]

The college argument doesn't completely fly. If you are an above average prospect out of college you rush through A ball pretty quickly (see Beckham, Danks, Fields off the top of my head). On average, college players that reach the Majors are older than the high schoolers that do, but I wouldn't say that is a good enough excuse for Shelby. He went straight to rookie ball and spent 2 full seasons in A-ball. He hasn't done anything to wow me as a prospect. If he gets it together he can be an above average 4th OF. He brings speed and defense. He could be useful, but I wouldn't expect much.

 

I think you're overstating the "two full years in A-ball" thing.

 

First... he spent one year in Kanny (low-A) and one in Winston-Salem (high-A) which is not unusual.

 

Second... It's been well documented that offensively he was considered ready for AA last year, but went through a position change that led the organization to choose not to have him skip a level offensively at the same time.

 

Two consecutive years he's had an SLG over .500. In 2008, Shelby led the Carolina League in slugging percentage and was 2nd in extra-base hits. He had 37 doubles, 7 triples, 15 homeruns, and 33 steals in 447 at-bats and you're excited about his defense? (BTW, Flowers played in this league last year too and Shelby out-slugged him.)

 

Every year in the minors he's started slow and come on in a big way later in the season. What do you say, let's see how this season plays out before writing him off, eh?

 

Regarding age... he's only 23... he's younger than Retherford by a couple of days... he's a couple of months younger than Lucas Harrell... he's only about 6 months older than Tyler Flowers... and he's only about 12 months older than Danks and Beckham. I don't get why people are treating him like he's "old" for his league. Is it because his name has been around too long, so he's simply not as 'intriguing' as the new guys?

Edited June 2, 2009 by scenario

[Kenny Hates Prospects]

You brought up extreme examples and my statement doesn't cover all players, it's a generalization that is typically correct. Jerry Owens was a prospect because in his 2nd full season as a pro he hit .331 in AA after skipping high-A. Tim Raines Jr. was never a big prospect and got 2 September call-ups on bad teams where he was probably called up because of his speed. I don't see how he is relevant.

 

Age is an extremely important tool to evaluate what a player's stats mean. Cook can hit the s*** out of the ball in AA, but he is older so does that mean more than Dayan holding his own in the league at 19? Probably not. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying Tim Raines Jr. hitting .256 in AAA with no power at age 21 is going to be a good player because he is young for his level.

I get what you are saying about Viciedo vs. Cook and Viciedo is a special player to be able to hang in AA at such a young age.

 

Maybe I didn't make my original point all that clear. Basically, age should be the last thing you look at IMO when it comes to evaluating a minor league player. Age can be telling when it comes to how advanced a player is at a certain point in his life, and it can be very telling when you're talking about how close or how far away a guy is from his physical prime, but to me it should go 1) physical tools & body type, 2) projectability & ceiling vs. floor, 3) performance, 4) age.

 

For example, Shelby would rate out much higher to me than Owens would have after his big year in AA even if Owens had been younger. The reason is Shelby is more toolsy, had performed well up to this point, has IMO a ceiling of a slightly above league-average starter offensively in an OF corner with an arm and a floor of a pinch runner/AAAA player. Owens appeared to have only 2 tools (speed and contact), he had performed as well, and his ceiling was a Juan Pierre type LF with no power. His floor was also a pinch runner/AAAA player just like Shelby's is. Because of the first three criteria, age wouldn't make me favor Owens even if he was 20 and tearing up AA with singles while Shelby was 23 and off to a slow start for the same team. I think a lot of people though would probably rate Owens higher than Shelby if this were the case simply because of age. The biggest problem with rating prospects largely because of age is that it implies probable improvement as a player learns and grows physically, but in reality, there are a lot of players who can both learn and grow a lot but still not become capable of playing baseball in the Major Leagues.

 

Also age is an especially bad argument for pitchers. Look at how long Tim Redding sat in the minors after failing in previous chances before having a couple good seasons for the Nats. Or there's Grant Balfour as another example, like Sherrill I mentioned earlier, although Sherrill played indy ball instead of wallowing in the minors. The point is, age is only worth so much. A 29-year-old pitcher with a big league arm who has never put it together before and is struggling in Triple A is automatically a better prospect than a 20-year-old kid who dominates low-A off of finesse, even though the 29-year-old is not considered a prospect and the 20-year-old is. These aren't just extreme examples either. There are lots of them. Santo Luis is 25 years old and has an ERA approaching 7.00 in Winston-Salem, and IMO he is a much better prospect than 24-year-old Kyle McCulloch with an ERA just above 4.00 in Birmingham. Neither are performing well, both have or are repeating levels with relatively minor improvement, and McCulloch is younger and is also a former first rounder. The difference is that Santo Luis can touch 100mph and that is a lot more important to me than those 6th starter/fringe LR AAAA types who are available every single ST for the league minimum.

 

Edit: Basically I think that the age curve is formed by a bunch of mediocre to s***ty players who aren't really prospects to begin with and a comparatively small group of legit top prospects who in general move quickly, thereby passing the s***ty players and appearing young for their leagues. But if a guy is old for his league but has a lot more talent than the rest of the s***ty players his age on his team then age alone is in no way a reliable predictor of his future success or failure. I guess I'm saying that we can't say David Cook won't make it simply because 1,000 Micah Schnursteins didn't make it. You have to look beyond that. And of course the numbers will bear out because there are a lot more old non-prospects in the minors than there are legit prospects of any age.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Kenny Hates Prospects

[danman31]

I think you're overstating the "two full years in A-ball" thing.

 

First... he spent one year in Kanny (low-A) and one in Winston-Salem (high-A) which is not unusual.

 

Second... It's been well documented that offensively he was considered ready for AA last year, but went through a position change that led the organization to choose not to have him skip a level offensively at the same time.

 

Two consecutive years he's had an SLG over .500. In 2008, Shelby led the Carolina League in slugging percentage and was 2nd in extra-base hits. He had 37 doubles, 7 triples, 15 homeruns, and 33 steals in 447 at-bats and you're excited about his defense? (BTW, Flowers played in this league last year too and Shelby out-slugged him.)

 

Every year in the minors he's started slow and come on in a big way later in the season. What do you say, let's see how this season plays out before writing him off, eh?

 

Regarding age... he's only 23... he's younger than Retherford by a couple of days... he's a couple of months younger than Lucas Harrell... he's only about 6 months older than Tyler Flowers... and he's only about 12 months older than Danks and Beckham. I don't get why people are treating him like he's "old" for his league. Is it because his name has been around too long, so he's simply not as 'intriguing' as the new guys?

You're just proving that Shelby isn't a good college prospect because it has taken him this long. AA is the biggest jump and he hasn't made it well. I would be worried about his contact rate and his walk rate, though his walk rate is finally decent this year. Tell me where it was documented that they thought Shelby was ready for AA last year because I have a hard time believing that considering he didn't blow the Carolina League away and he's been awful in AA so far this year. As for Flowers, almost all of his value comes from playing catcher so you can't compare them.

 

I've never been a big fan of Shelby as a prospect, so arguing about his age is pretty pointless.

 

Maybe I didn't make my original point all that clear. Basically, age should be the last thing you look at IMO when it comes to evaluating a minor league player. Age can be telling when it comes to how advanced a player is at a certain point in his life, and it can be very telling when you're talking about how close or how far away a guy is from his physical prime, but to me it should go 1) physical tools & body type, 2) projectability & ceiling vs. floor, 3) performance, 4) age.

 

For example, Shelby would rate out much higher to me than Owens would have after his big year in AA even if Owens had been younger. The reason is Shelby is more toolsy, had performed well up to this point, has IMO a ceiling of a slightly above league-average starter offensively in an OF corner with an arm and a floor of a pinch runner/AAAA player. Owens appeared to have only 2 tools (speed and contact), he had performed as well, and his ceiling was a Juan Pierre type LF with no power. His floor was also a pinch runner/AAAA player just like Shelby's is. Because of the first three criteria, age wouldn't make me favor Owens even if he was 20 and tearing up AA with singles while Shelby was 23 and off to a slow start for the same team. I think a lot of people though would probably rate Owens higher than Shelby if this were the case simply because of age. The biggest problem with rating prospects largely because of age is that it implies probable improvement as a player learns and grows physically, but in reality, there are a lot of players who can both learn and grow a lot but still not become capable of playing baseball in the Major Leagues.

 

Also age is an especially bad argument for pitchers. Look at how long Tim Redding sat in the minors after failing in previous chances before having a couple good seasons for the Nats. Or there's Grant Balfour as another example, like Sherrill I mentioned earlier, although Sherrill played indy ball instead of wallowing in the minors. The point is, age is only worth so much. A 29-year-old pitcher with a big league arm who has never put it together before and is struggling in Triple A is automatically a better prospect than a 20-year-old kid who dominates low-A off of finesse, even though the 29-year-old is not considered a prospect and the 20-year-old is. These aren't just extreme examples either. There are lots of them. Santo Luis is 25 years old and has an ERA approaching 7.00 in Winston-Salem, and IMO he is a much better prospect than 24-year-old Kyle McCulloch with an ERA just above 4.00 in Birmingham. Neither are performing well, both have or are repeating levels with relatively minor improvement, and McCulloch is younger and is also a former first rounder. The difference is that Santo Luis can touch 100mph and that is a lot more important to me than those 6th starter/fringe LR AAAA types who are available every single ST for the league minimum.

 

Edit: Basically I think that the age curve is formed by a bunch of mediocre to s***ty players who aren't really prospects to begin with and a comparatively small group of legit top prospects who in general move quickly, thereby passing the s***ty players and appearing young for their leagues. But if a guy is old for his league but has a lot more talent than the rest of the s***ty players his age on his team then age alone is in no way a reliable predictor of his future success or failure. I guess I'm saying that we can't say David Cook won't make it simply because 1,000 Micah Schnursteins didn't make it. You have to look beyond that. And of course the numbers will bear out because there are a lot more old non-prospects in the minors than there are legit prospects of any age.

I don't think the player curve is based on a bunch of minor league scrubs when they typically don't play as long and the prime age is considered 27. By 27, these minor league scrubs only have a couple years left if they really want to stick it out. I don't think age is the most important factor, but when matched with performance and level it can explain a lot. You keep bringing up exceptions and they don't make your point or mine. I said it's a generalization and twice you have mentioned a guy that didn't pitch in the minors until 26, clearly he is not a normal case. Tim Redding made it to the Majors at 23 and had his first "good" season at 25, he doesn't work for your argument. At this point Balfour has an anomalously good season and a s*** career otherwise.

 

I just think the curve is usually right. As for Shelby, I don't believe he has the upside of an above-average everyday player and that's where we differ in this argument.

[scenario]

Dan,

 

You picked a bad day to trash Shelby.

 

4-5 with 5 RBIs including a game-tying grand slam in the 9th inning tonight.

 

You realize now that every time he has a good game for the rest of the year that you're going to be hearing about it, don't you?

 

 

 

Regarding your other responses... there were a couple of articles I quoted on the board last year about his position change, and why he didn't get promoted to Birmingham, etc. And I know I wrote about it several times in posts. I thought it was a pretty well understood and documented issue.

 

And what do you mean, he didn't 'blow the Carolina League away'? He lead the league in slugging. He was 2nd in doubles. He was 3rd in steals. He was 4th in triples. He was 6th in the league in batting average. He was 6th in RBIs. He was selected in a poll of league managers at year end as the most exciting offensive player in the entire Carolina League. What else does he have to do to impress you? Walk on water?

Edited June 3, 2009 by scenario

[danman31]

Dan,

 

You picked a bad day to trash Shelby.

 

4-5 with 5 RBIs including a game-tying grand slam in the 9th inning tonight.

 

You realize now that every time he has a good game for the rest of the year that you're going to be hearing about it, don't you?

 

 

 

Regarding your other responses... there were a couple of articles I quoted on the board last year about his position change, and why he didn't get promoted to Birmingham, etc. And I know I wrote about it several times in posts. I thought it was a pretty well understood and documented issue.

 

And what do you mean, he didn't 'blow the Carolina League away'? He lead the league in slugging. He was 2nd in doubles. He was 3rd in steals. He was 4th in triples. He was 6th in the league in batting average. He was 6th in RBIs. He was selected in a poll of league managers at year end as the most exciting offensive player in the entire Carolina League. What else does he have to do to impress you? Walk on water?

That's fine, I'm fairly sure I won't be worrying about it very often. He did not blow the league away. He hit under .300, he didn't have an OPS above .900. I'm not saying he didn't have a good season, but he did nothing to demand a mid-season promotion. That's what I mean by blowing the league away.

[scenario]

That's fine, I'm fairly sure I won't be worrying about it very often. He did not blow the league away. He hit under .300, he didn't have an OPS above .900. I'm not saying he didn't have a good season, but he did nothing to demand a mid-season promotion. That's what I mean by blowing the league away.

 

Do you realize that in the Carolina League last year only 3 players in the entire league hit over .300?

 

And only one player in the entire league had an OPS over .900?

 

You have to look at what was going on in the leagues and not just apply some arbitrary guidelines to determine whether somebody performed well.

 

When you're #6 in the Carolina League in both batting average and OPS... that's very good.

 

Add the speed and slugging in... and that's pretty darn impressive.

 

Consider that he had very similar power stats to Tyler Flowers!! Plus 33 steals.

 

If you're really not impressed by that, I think you're either being unrealistic in your expectations or you've simply decided you don't like the guy... facts be damned.

 

Edited June 3, 2009 by scenario

[danman31]

Do you realize that in the Carolina League last year only 3 players in the entire league hit over .300?

And only one player in the entire league had an OPS over .900?

You have to look at what was going on in the leagues and not just apply some arbitrary guidelines to determine whether somebody performed well.

When you're #6 in the Carolina League in both batting average and OPS... that's very good.

Add the speed and slugging in... and that's pretty darn impressive.

Consider that he had very similar power stats to Tyler Flowers!! Plus 33 steals.

If you're really not impressed by that, I think you're either being unrealistic in your expectations or you've simply decided you don't like the guy... facts be damned.

It's an 8 team league first of all and there are a few more players that had a high OPS. I think you are looking at a qualified list, which doesn't include the players that got promoted to or from the league mid-season. I counted 10 or 11 better than Shelby. In an 8 team league, that isn't blowing the league away. I didn't mean that he had to blow the league away to impress me, I just highly doubt he would have been ready for AA last year considering he didn't dominate the league below it when high-A to AA is considered the biggest jump in the minors. That was my point, it wasn't an evaluation of Shelby as a prospect.

 

Shelby had a mediocre OBP due to a poor walk rate. Don't compare him to Tyler Flowers please, Flowers had a better OBP by almost .100.