Definitely check out the post from this morning. Probably one of the best discussions we’ve had here on FR. Good stuff.
Move Him On Up Installments: QC Hitters, QC Pitchers, PB hitters, PB Pitchers, SP Hitters, SP Pitchers
Well, I’m a little behind the pattern of transactions but at least I got Joe Mather’s promotion right. I had him moving up from AA along with Jarrett Hoffpauir. Skip Schumaker moved up to the big leagues for some part time duty while Jim Edmonds has a stint on the DL. For all intensive purposes, both Schumaker and Brendan Ryan are still in Memphis — or at least have a season pass for the Memphis-STL shuttle.
I’m going to make room for Joe Mather and Jarrett Hoffpauir very quickly, release Tagg Bozied and John Nelson. There that tidies things up nicely. Bozied isn’t really an outfielder and if the Cardinals need another one John Rodriguez is the best bet. If the Cardinals need middle infield help, they’ll continue to turn to Brendan Ryan. Jarrett Hoffpauir should rack up playing time when Ryan is in STL and, since the Cardinals don’t look interested in view Edgar Gonzalez at all splitting some time with him won’t hurt.
As far as pitchers go, we had a strikeout trio of relievers moving up to Memphis: Jason Motte, Matt Scherer and Chris Perez. Again easy solution is to boot the garbage roster filler that plagues Memphis. Matt Ginter lost his rotation spot and serves very little purpose besides being a warm body in Memphis. Ditto Mike Smith. Hugo Catellanos is having a nice season but he’s 28 and at best a middle reliever. We’ve got better options for middle relief if STL needs immediate help in Andy Cavazos, Troy Cate and Brian Falkenborg. So removing Ginter, Smith and Castellanos frees up the bullpen for our Springfield promotions. Imagine Memphis with a bullpen of Falkenborg, Worrell, Sillman, Perez, Motte, Scherer and Cate. That is a bullpen with some real upside. I bet Dyar Miller would love to have that many guns in the shed.
I’ve got to slightly play with the rules so that we can finish up the series. I’m not going to promote anyone to the bigs this time around. OK. Now what do I really want to do now that I very abrasively solved the AA promotions. Let’s talk MLB potential. Players in AAA typically have the most statistical background which provides us with a reasonable ability to project them in the majors. There are two things I want to talk about with regards to each player: potential and likelihood.
I’ll play it easy and classify as player’s potential, the best-case scenario in essence, with the following categories (very similar to BPs Stars and Scrubs categories): superstar, star, regular, fringe or non-prospect. Those categories should be pretty self-explanatory; a star is someone who has peak seasons that can carry a team (think Scott Rolen). A superstar is basically a star who performs at that peak level for a greater period of time (think Albert Pujols, Alex Rodriguez). A regular is someone who plays everyday but is more of a role player than a core player (think Juan Encarnacion, Aubrey Huff). A fringe player is someone who is secluded to a platoon or bench role (think David Dellucci). A non-prospect is just that someone who has no reasonable shot at staying in the majors for more than a month or so a season. Also, potential changes based on empirical results. If Randy Kiesler puts 7 mph on his fastball and develops a sharp slider, he’d probably be a regular for potential. But that’s totally outside the scope of what we can reasonably project or expect to happen. So if a player hasn’t managed to convert tools into results at all by AAA, then the likelihood of that happening isn’t as good as if they were a younger player at a lower level. And the last component to remember is age. Younger is better relative to the level of competition provided the player isn’t completely overwhelmed.
As far as likelihood goes, this is harder to categorize and I don’t want to be overly vague about it. I could put it on a scale of 1-10 but that seems slightly arbitrary. What’s the difference between a 4 and a 5? Hell if I know. How about we use qualitative labels again: sure-fire, good bet, reasonable expectation or risky proposition. I suppose I could say 1-4 but I think this is far more descriptive in nature. So if you’d rather have numbers just read the categories as numbers.
Feel free to comment/question the categories if you want further clarification. I’ll post in a couple days to review the Memphis hitters and then the pitchers with these two categories as we wrap up the Move Him On Up series.
Filed under: Minor Leagues, analysis
erik
azruavatar
fewgoodcards
roarke49
theredbaaron
They use a similar ratings style for hockey prospects over at hockey’s future, and it really helps to clear the situation up.
First, they give a player a grade from one to ten for their max potential: ten being a generational talent (like Bonds or Pujols) and a one being someone who’s one step away from playing church league softball.
Then, they give a player a grade from A to F. This grade is for how likely they are to acheive that talent. An A is a mortal lock to fill their potential, an F has a major uphill battle.
I don’t know if this is something you’d like to tinker with, but I thought this might be a good jumping off point for the numbered grades (you can also give out half numbers like 7.5 if so needed.)
10: Generational Talent–maybe see a handful in your lifetime (think Bonds, Pujols, Pedro, etc.)
9: Elite Talent–Perhaps HOF caliber, at the very least a perennial all-star (think Manny Ramirez, Chipper Jones, Greg Maddux, Mariano Rivera, etc.)
8: Star Position Player/Staff Ace/Ace Closer: They’ll probably make some All-Star games, but aren’t really hall of fame quality or guys you think of when thinking of the handful of best players. (think Scott Rolen, Jermaine Dye, Chris Carpenter, Francisco Rodriguez, etc.)
7: Everyday Player/#2-3 starter/Setup Man or late inning bullpen. Guys who certainly contribute but won’t ever be at the top of the league (think Juan Encarnacion, Orlando Cabrera, Jon Garland, Scott Linebrink, etc.)
6: Platoon/Bench Player/#4-5 starter/mop-up men. The guys who you don’t really expect much of other than to spell some guys or play just adequately (think So Taguchi, Jason Marquis, Todd Wellemeyer, etc.)
5: AAAA player/AAA All-Star. Think John Gall.
4: Career AAA everyday player.
3: Career AAA platoon/bench player.
2: Career AA player.
1: Career A or lower player.
i really like that system. but, i would say maddux and rivera would be 10s, and probably also ramirez. maddux and rivera are definitely locks for the hall. unless you are referring to their reputations as prospects. i have no idea how they were regarded. but now i am nitpicking. i like the ranking system.
I put Maddux, Rivera and Ramirez as 9’s because they aren’t the kind of guys that come around once every ten or twenty years.
Yes, they all should go to the Hall of Fame, but I just don’t think of them in the same way I think of Pujols or Bonds, who are guys that you see and think “Man, he could be one of the ten best to ever play.”
Perhaps the guys I listed at 9 are more like 9.5’s.
fair enough