BBB Community #15(2) Overall Prospect - David Cooper vs. Chad Jenkins
by MjwW on Feb 10, 2012 11:10 PM EST
Email
PrintThe last community prospect poll was also #15, but since Nestor Molina was traded, he is removed from the list and everyone is bumped up one spot, so the #15 spot is still open.
Use Rec's to vote and place all comments in the comment area.
The poll will stay open through the weekend and sometime Monday afternoon the next poll will go.
Also, Chad Jenkins is the last pitcher on the original list at the bottom. I'll put a poll at the bottom to determine a new #10 now that everyone below Molina is effectively a spot higher, so vote there as well.
RESULTS:
Joel Carreno - 51.2%
David Cooper - 48.8%
CANDIDATES:
David Cooper - 1B (age 25 on 4/1/2012); Bats/Throws: Left/Left
2010: Class AA - 553 PA .257/.327/.442 110 wRC+ 9.4 BB% 13.4 K%
2011: Class AAA - 545 PA .364/.439/.535 142 wRC+ 12.3 BB% 7.9 K%
MLB: 81 PA .211/.284/.394 82 wRC+ 8.6 BB% 17.3 K%
Chad Jenkins - SP (age 24 on 4/1/2012); Bats/Throws: Right/Right
2010 Class A: 79.1 IP / 3.63 ERA / 2.94 FIP / 7.26 K/9 / 1.47 BB/9 / 0.57 HR/9
2010 Class A+: 62.1 IP / 4.33 ERA / 3.97 FIP / 6.06 K/9 / 2.60 BB/9 / 0.87 HR/9
2011 Class A+: 67.1 IP / 3.07 ERA / 3.10 FIP / 5.88 K/9 / 1.87 BB/9 / 0.40 HR/9
2011 Class AA: 100.1 / 4.13 ERA / 3.63 FIP / 6.64 K/9 / 2.42 BB/9 / 0.72 HR/9
COMMUNITY LIST:
1. Travis d'Arnaud - 90.6%
2. Anthony Gose - 65.9%
3. Drew Hutchison - 56.7%
4. Jake Marisnick - 97%
5. Noah Syndergaard - 74.4%
** Nestor Molina - 75.8%
6. Deck McGuire - 65.7%
7. Justin Nicolino - 55.0%
8. Adeiny Hechavarria - 75%
9. Daniel Norris - 87.9%
10. AJ Jimenez - 55.3%
11. Aaron Sanchez - 79.3%
12. Carlos Perez - 60.7%
13. Adonys Cardona - 65.8%
14. Joel Carreno - 51.2%
NEXT UP:
Pitcher: TBD
Position Player: Marcus Knecht
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Who's excited for blue instead of green
by Gerse on Feb 10, 2012 11:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well
Not those of us who couldn’t bother to change it. Of course, when running regressions, I’m always happy when my results are BLUE.
Future direction
We’ve put a lot more pitchers on so far compared to position players. Once we exhaust pitchers, do we want to elect more pitchers in polls like the above, or just dump the remaining position players on in the order from before? If we did this, the list could/would go beyond 20, probably to around 25.
I like the idea of adding pitchers if we run out
if we didnt itd be more like top 15 then 5 batters that could possibly be lower
More pitchers seems like the call.
Because otherwise we couldn’t really say if the number 16-20 prospects were really the 16th-20th best.
by T_Mizz on Feb 11, 2012 2:37 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
My view of the battle of Riccardi's last two first rounders
I prefer Cooper, though really they’re similar type players – a chance to be average regulars in their peak seasons, but but probably part timers, either as a bench bat/platoon role for Cooper or a reliever for Jenkins. Both fit the mold of Riccardi’s draftees – college players with relatively small upside but low chances of never making it
by MjwW on Feb 10, 2012 11:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I prefer Jenkins
Probably just because I haven’t seen him and I’ve seen and been umimpressed by Cooper. Obviously, it’s way too early for me to say I’ve seen all I need to on Cooper, I’ve just never been super high on him and his audition didn’t change my mind.
Jenkins, seems weird to me. Doesn’t he throw his fastball with good sink at like 94 (touching 96)? And he seems like he’s got ok command. Also I thought I heard he had an above average slider. I don’t understand how he hasn’t been able to produce if the above is true. Of course, I don’t know for sure that it is.
by T_Mizz on Feb 11, 2012 2:42 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
He’s got a good sinking fastball, but I don’t believe the velocity is nearly that good…at best average for a RHP. And I don’t think his secondaries are more than fringey/average. His ceiling is basically a back of the rotation type – he may get a shot at the rotation here, but I doubt he holds it down. On other teams he might be able to stick in the back end, but he’s not what you want on a good team in the AL East.
So we're looking at a Shawn Camp type guy?
by T_Mizz on Feb 11, 2012 4:45 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I think I'd say better ceiling than that
From what I’ve read, some think he has a decent chance to start, but he’s probably not a first division starter. Maybe a slightly better Jesse Litsch is a better comp? Not in terms of the stuff, but in terms of a fringey ability to start and better results from the pen.
I meant more in terms of what he'll throw
I imagine he’ll just come out and throw sinker after sinker. But I agree, what I’ve read (and I am sure I read this) is that he’ll be able to be a bottom of the rotation starter if his team wants him there. If we’ve got better options, why not throw him in the pen.
by T_Mizz on Feb 11, 2012 9:05 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
No worries
I would have offered to do it earlier, but you guys had a system going and I didn’t want to intrude on it/steal your thunder if you wanted to see it through to conclusion
I wasn’t sure if people had lost interest in it. I can still do one sometimes if you like.
by JaysSaskatchewan on Feb 11, 2012 9:44 AM EST up reply actions
I'm indifferent
If you’d like to, just say to and we can switch off or whatever. Interest might have waned a bit, but there’s also not much else going on, so it’s something to discuss (personally, I don’t really care about the results, the discussion is much more fun). I just think it’s important to put one up every 2 or 3 days with a goal to finish by Spring Training when other stuff will pick up.
In Defence of David Cooper
He’s getting walloped in the poll right now, so I thought it worthwhile to point out just how remarkable his 2011 season was: more impressive than his slash-line of .364/.439/.535 was his plate discipline: walking at a very strong 12% clip while striking out just 8% of his plate appearances: that makes for a 1.54 BB/K rate. For some context, that’s significantly better than any player in the majors last year (Ian Kinsler led the majors with a 1.25 number). Unlike power spikes (which Cooper did not have at Las Vegas), the PCL doesn’t have a huge effect on plate discipline numbers. A little more power seems possible from Cooper (he had higher ISO marks both with the Jays and with New Hampshire in 2011), but his skill-set as a hitter could translate really well to the major leagues without such an improvement.
what are they going to do with Cooper anyway?
He lead the minors in OBP, and had a nice September for the Jays. Could he challenge Lind at some point this season? Is he simply trade bait? He can’t stay in Vegas forever. McDade and Clemens will get some at bats in Vegas, I think.
Same could be said for Jenkins. There doesn’t seem to be much room for him in the future. His numbers in 2011 were actually quite good as well. He doesn’t get much press, but he could be decent. Perhaps he’s destined for the pen, but AA seems to like veterans in there.
I think we're sleeping on Jacob Anderson with this list.
There’s a lot of buzz about him, I’ve read projections that say plus raw power, plus hit tool, and 15-20 bag speed, I’d have him at 15, even with the small amount of pro data. rest of the list looks great though.
I do love me some Jacob Anderson
But I think he’s just too obscure so far. He’ll breakout in a big way this year and he’ll find his way towards the top 10 prospects.
by T_Mizz on Feb 12, 2012 11:31 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Obscurity does not reduce prospect value
This is the error we amateur prospect-watchers fall into- undervaluing the guys we aren’t familiar with. The professionals have more information, and rank recent draftees higher than we tend to; I think we should just be more comfortable with the limited information we have in order to put together a list that is as accurate as possible.
Two things
FIrst, the original lists were put together well back in November, before all the prospect rankings came out, so there’s been some updated info since then.
Even then, while you correctly identify that limited infomation plays a role, I think the more important fact is that he’s just out of high school and has barely played professionally. Which means, it’s tough to have a handle on him (very few scouts would have seen him indep-th, so even the professionals have proportionately less info), and the risk is very high. I’ve heard just a few too many Anderson ~ Marisnick comps for my taste, because the reality is an outcome like Marisnick’s is not the average outcome for a prospect two years after being drafted – it’s more like a 90% outcome, and a heck of a lot to ask.
I keep changing my personal list, but I’ve had him 14-18.
Anderson
You’re quite right that the timing had much to do with the ranking as well. As you say, even the professionals have less information to go on, but they also have the experience not to discount such prospects’ value by merely on that account -though there may be a conservative tendency.
As for Anderson himself, he’s a particular favourite of mine and a bit of a hunch, so he’ll be higher on my list than almost all- I have him 9th overall, behind only the big three hitters.
Hate to disagree with you but,
you don’t get chosen 35th overall in a draft if you haven’t been well scouted. The fact that he’s barely played professionally also means little, seeing that guys like Norris and Comer are getting high ratings around the prospects boards, and they haven’t played at all professionally.
There's a distinction between amateur and professional scouting
He would have been scouted plenty by amateur scouting, I was referring to the fact that few scouts on the professional side would have seen him. Also, the selection was considered an overdraft at the time, which is fine with me (I trust the Jays know what they’re doing), and so he wasn’t a guy about whom a lot was written.
As for the lack of professional experience – I don’t mean that this should bump him down in and of itself. My point is, as a consequence of that, there is very little information available on him. I mean, all I’ve seen is little tidbits here and there – physically he’s like Marisnick (and has similar tools), he impressed at instructs, should have some power, in high school played 1B his senior season but profiles as a corner OF….that’s about it.
Norris is going higher because he was considered a mid-1st rounder on talent…one of the top prep LHPs in the draft, if not the best one. For me, it’s the same deal, I want to see more once he gets in pro ball, but at least there there’s a lot more info to go on. Comer is basically being ranked on his bonus (and not really ranked that that high), there’s even less info on him than Anderson.
I get what you're saying.
But that’s all they would be going on when it comes to Norris and Comer too (scouting wise). Can’t say that I’ve heard much more about Anderson other than that the Jays loved his bat speed and power (won a homerun hitting contest at Wrigley). That along with what you mentioned has me liking him alot. On Comer, Jonathon Mayo has good things to say about him in his rankings (not advocating him, although I like him better than K. Law).
MjwW, I wish you’d have a more addressable name. At any rate, I largely agree with you- we don’t have as much to go on with Anderson as with most of our other prospects. But doesn’t that just mean that the expected range of outcomes is larger than otherwise, not that the mean is lower? And if so, shouldn’t we rank more or less by the mean expectation? (Especially as the Jays don’t seem to be putting an emphasis on either probability or nearness to contributing to the major-league team – in fact, rather the opposite.)
Anderson’s pre-draft ranking should doubtless be a factor, but I also take Kevin Goldstein & Keith Law’s positive reactions to the pick into account, as well as his actual draft position.
While we don’t have as much information on Anderson as we’d like, what we do have is without exception encouraging, and one thing you don’t mention is a dominant week and a half in the GCL after signing. Even there, we might have an indication of some very quick adjustments- he went 0-3 with 3Ks in his first game, they held him out for a week, he came back and raked. Small indications, to be sure, but definitely on the positive side of the ledger. There are some who think he has sufficient speed to potentially play centre as well, though right looks more likely. High risk, high ceiling.
A quick comment regarding Norris – I don’t think there’s any doubt he was the top left-handed prep pitcher in the draft. Henry Owens and Kevin Matthews weren’t particularly near him on any lists I saw.
I agree, the expected range of outcomes is larger, but I would argue the problem with low levels of information is not that the mean is lower (you’re right, that shouldn’t be the case), but that we have trouble identifying the true mean. I mean, it’s hard enough getting a good idea of exactly how good is a guy in high-A or AA on whom there is a lot more info (Nestor Molina comes to mind), that it seems like doing if for someone on whom there is are essentially no pro reports or pro data.
Regarding his GCL stint, I basically place no weight on it, for two reasons. First, the statistical line of argument. If he had been terrible for a week and a half, we would say – rightfully – that it means nothing. I suppose it’s better than he tore it up rather than stunk, but it’s equally as meaningless. Second, the league – all stats coming out of complex leagues don’t mean a lot, because of the level of competition. Most of the 2011 didn’t play there, because of the signing deadline, so basically it’s very young Latin players and older North American players. That those two together, and I can;t fathom trying to make meaningful inferences.
In terms of my philosophy in how I look at evaluating players (major leaguers and prospects), I’m pretty conservative – a bird in the hand over two in the bush. That’s a personal bias, and one I try not to let overly influence me, but I think baseball fans generally get too caught up in ceiling and best case scenarios. With Anderson in particular, it’s easy – the tools are apparently there, and you throw out a comp to Marisnick and it’s easy to dream on him. I’ll personally hold off on going too aggressive until we see more game action and data (translating tools to performance) and get some more complete reports. I try to think in terms of reasonable ceiling and reasonable floor, and the thing is, the reasonable floor is essentially a washout (it is for basically any prep draft pick save the elite) and the reasonable ceiling is something like what Marisnick profiles to be. So that doesn’t really help here. Also, I’ve never heard of him as having a chance to be a good enough CFer like Marisnick has a chance to do…my understanding is he’s a corner all the way.
I should add
Personally, I’ve got Anderson at 15 right now, 8th among position players. There’s the obvious 3 position players, then Jimenez (plus defensive catcher going to AA with a good hit tool has to rate above Anderson IMO) and then 3 more that I could understand Anderson ahead of, depending on what one wants to emphasize – Perez, Hechavarria, Knecht.
I last revised my list was a month ago – I think I could live with him above Knecht, though again, Knecht is more advanced, similar position, so that’s where my “bird in the hand” view comes into play, though Anderson has the better tools. Perez and Hechavarria have more positional value, Hech’s reasonable floor is basically a utility IF, so there’s a ton of value. Perez…I still want to believe. I should probably switch Hech and Perez, just on Hech’s much higher floor.
You know
I’d like to see your full list, how deep did you go?
PS maybe make it a fanpost “MjwW’s prospect rankings”, if you added in those graphs you do I’m sure it’d be a hit.
PPS Chris Hawkins?!?
by T_Mizz on Feb 13, 2012 8:36 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Well
Around the holidays, I took my list of th entire Jays minor league system, eliminated the obvious non-prospects, and kinda started slotting. I had this vague notion of ranking the whole organization. I mean, after the Top 20 it’s pretty arbitrary anyway, and after the top 30-40 pretty much completely random. I don’t want to steal the thunder of the top 50 list that was just rolled out, and I’m working on other stuff with the time I spend on baseball, but it sounds like a fun idea for a week or two from now.
Hawkins…I’m not as high on him as most. He’s around 25-30 for me (I could give you the actual number, but frankly as I said above, that’s a false level of precision, the range is more accurate I feel). Nice offensive debut in the Appy League, but a lot of guys mash there and fail to repeat it in full-season ball, so I hesitate to put a lot of weight into that performance.Two major factors…first, he’s apparently a corner OF now (and LF from what I understand), which puts a lot of pressure on the bat. Second, the age…he was almost 19 when drafted, played his age 19/20 year old in essentially rookie ball. He’s 20.5 at this point, and hasn’t made it to full season ball yet…which means his skills may be playing up against younger, less physically mature and less polished competition, and he needs to move quickly.
Knecht/Sierra
I’m curious how you would rank Sierra in relation to Knecht given your evaluation philosophy. Sierra was two levels up from Knecht and a little less than two years older, so age v. level was basically equivalent. Knecht hit better (140 to 110 wRC+), but Sierra is closer, is likely to have more defensive value and is regarded as toolsier than Knecht.
Sierra
I’m higher on Knecht, because I doubt Sierra’s ability to play as a regular or better at higher levels. My gut says extra guy. Sierra has power and defensive value, but I doubt the hit tool and appraoch. Could be very valuable as a 4th OF who can come in to pinch hit if there’s2 ut and you need an extra base hit, and then stay in defensively. Seems more suited to the NL in that respect. In this case, I’ll take Knecht, because I think he has a better chance to be a regular or better.
Well, heck...
I doubt both of their abilities to play as regulars at the big league level, neither being good enough prospects to put their estimates of success very high.
My principal concern with Knecht’s hit tool is his somewhat elevated strikeout-rate even though he has good plate discipline – which seems likely to be a moderate contact problem. Sierra doesn’t draw as many walks, to be sure, but he seems to make more (if not quite as good) contact.
by gabrielsyme on Feb 13, 2012 10:08 PM EST up reply actions
While we have different philosophies of prospect evaluation – I lean towards tools, ceilings and star potential, you towards the bird in the hand- I don’t think we actually disagree all that much.
As for the professional data, I think it’s meaningful, even in a small sample. Whether guys succeed in their first taste of pro ball seems to be a decent predictor of future success, especially among high-school bats. Who looks good from the 2010 draft class? Guys like Machado, Castellanos and Yelich- all of whom had encouraging SSS debuts in rookie ball in their draft year; Deshields, Cowart and Deglan had noticeably disappointing SSS debuts and have not yet established themselves as good prospects. It’s hardly determinative, but such debuts do appear to me to be meaningful (so, yes, my view of Anderson would have been materially affected negatively had he scuffled in his debut).
Right
Even if we emphasize different things, we’ll still be looking at the same things for 80%, it’s the 20% where it’ll be different. Ultimately, I’m looking for the same things (as are professional talent evaluators, although they’re doing it much better and first hand), it’s just how you weight it.
That said, I still can’t on the sample sizes, not in the least. You can’t pick 6 guys and their results one year out and say that results in meaning, because it’s too easy to pick 6 that fit the narrative. What I would want to see (and maybe I’ll look into this because I’m curious) is too take all 2010 draftees in the GCL/Arizona League, pick the top, say, 10-20%, and correlate that with the 2011 performance/ranking (or change in ranking). In other words, this would tell us if a good performance in short stints in AFL actually tells us anything about how a prospect will advance.
Sample sizes
Small samples do, of course, mean something- the question is how much they mean. I am making the aggressive argument that in this context (high-school hitters’ draft-year debuts) they mean somewhat more than we would ordinarily think, but if you want to regard 42 PA as simply one tenth as meaningful as 420 PA, by all means feel free.
What I dislike is when some (not yourself, if I understand you correctly) entirely dismiss relevant evidence because it doesn’t cross some arbitrary sample threshold (we saw this with some people’s attitude towards Hechavarria’s AAA numbers). The meaning we ought to attribute to a given performance is, as you know, scaled to the size of the sample.
Then there is context- PCL numbers aren’t as reliable as similar samples in the International; you argue that the GCL and AZL should be discounted due to the odd nature of the competition. This overlays the general principle.
The reason I used 2010 draftees is that there were quite a few (6) who had under 100 ABs. In 2009 there were just two similarly-situated draftees: Borchering and Nick Franklin, none in 2008. 2007 had four such debuts: Moustakas, Josh Vitters, Matt Dominguez and Heyward; Dominguez and Vitters didn’t hit a lick, Moustakas and Heyward put up good slash lines. One could expand the sample size by looking at the first 60 or so PA of all relevant debuts, but that’s rather more work than I’d care to undertake at the moment, even if the data is obtainable at all.
Okay, couple points
First, the idea of magical stability levels is completely false, and the people who talk about there being magical levels don’t understand statistics. Those thresholds refer to the point where from a statistical point of view, the variance in the statistic is low enough that it is more due to the signal (what the statisti is measuring), than the noise. Literally, the 50% threshold between these two.
In reality, we have a point estimate of the true statistic, and an range around it that tells us how reliable that estimate is in terms of what is the true measurement of the statistic. In baseball parlance, the observed batting average or woBA is an estimate of the true talent level, there is quite a bit of noise (luck) sich that the observed average deviated from the true talent level. The larger the sample, the more it’s indicative of skill and the less it’s random noise/luck, and as the sample increases, the smaller the range of what the true talent actually is. So basically, I prefer to think in terms of ranges, rather than reliability thresholds – though they’re flip sides of the same coin.
An aside – the way these things are calculated is not linear. So 42 PA is not one-tenth as meaningful compared to 420 PA. You use square roots, so 42 PA is root(42)/root(420) = 6.5/20.5 = roughly 3-tenths as meaningful as 420 plate appearances.
So, back to Anderson. Let’s take his OBP, since it’s the easiest to analyze. He posted a .476 OBP, and with 42 PA that means a standard deviation of 0.077. So, the two standard deviation (roughly 95%) confidence interval of his true talent would be between 0.321 and .630. So, it’s basically so wide as to be meaningless. If I repeat the exercise with wOBA, I get an interval between .347 and 685 – again, so wide as to be practically meaningless. And that’s before we consider the competition issues I identified
For practical purposes here
Standard error and standard deviation are interchangeable….there’s some technical differences (see the Wikipedia article on standard error), but I was using standard deviation here to mean standard error (and just approximated 2 SD rather than 1.96)
Meaningless?
When the low end of the confidence interval is basically average? I’ll take the 95% chance of his true talent being above-average for his league.
Although shouldn’t we simply be determining regression to the mean (or, to be precise- the previous expectation for Anderson)? There isn’t an equal chance his true talent lies above what he did as below that level. My statistical knowledge is weak, so I won’t even attempt to run the numbers; but basically, if the scouting community have expected Anderson to put up a .350 wOBA in the GCL, the fact he put up a .516 in 42 PA shifts the expectation of his true talent. You regress the 42 PA with the .516 wOBA to the previous expectation, and then you have a new estimate of true talent- say a .370 wOBA.
Thanks for the lesson on relative importance of sample sizes- I knew it wasn’t linear, but I never bothered learning exactly what the relation is.
Regression is for future projection
I’m not trying to project his future stats based on these, I’m evaluating what he actually did.
From a purely technical sense your interpretations that even the low end is above average, and that there’s not (in reality) an equal chance of being above that as a true talent are both correct. In a sense, the statistical distribution is not “smart” enough to pick up on that – it assumes a normal distribution, which is true of almost anything with a large enough sample. It tries to compensate with a very high standard error terms, which is basically it’s way of saying “these results are very unreliable”. That’s why I was focussed on the spread between the low end and high end – so big as to be essentially meaningless. Which is why I said it was technically correct – you still have to apply basic commen sense inferences to statistics.
What you are describing is basically Bayesian updating applied to baseball – we take our prior beliefs and update them for new information, weighting them according (of course, not formally using Bayes’ law). And of course, we should expect a 1st round supplemental pick to do well in the GCL.
Obviously, you’re free to make of those stats what you want. I strongly disagree with trying to give them much meaning, not only due to the small sample, but also the level of play. There’s also a certain selection bias – players who report and don’t look ready don’t play, which would inflate more polished hitters’ stats (since basically no pitchers signed at the deadline play in the GCL in the signing year). I think that trying to read too much into them is going to be misleading more times than not, but it’s largely a matter of interpretation. There’s a reason they say “lies, damn lies and statistics”
Regression is for true talent
I’m not sure that your argument about the GCL doesn’t just boil down to it being a low level of play- not that results there are inherently subject to greater variation.
Again, I don’t think we disagree on fundamentals, but it all boils down to how much significance one places on those PA, where we can happily disagree.
I’m not sure that we should expect HS draftees to perform well in the GCL in their draft year. Might look it up & get back to you.
Obviously it doesn't, that's not what I meant
Obscurity goes hand in hand with the lack of info about him, which stems from the fact that he’s a kid out of high school who’s had less than 20 games under his belt.
by T_Mizz on Feb 12, 2012 4:40 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Cooper
I see upside in Cooper. I see none in Jenkins. That said, I see more chance for a long career at the back end of rotations or in middle relief for Jenkins.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bluebird Banter
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
- The Juice: Mesoraco’s grand slam helps Reds complete four-game sweep of Braves
- Please hold: Indians’ Joe Smith jumps the gun on relief appearance
- Local radio host honors Cubs’ Tony Campana with parody song
