Eric Hosmer used 2010 to reestablish himself as one of the best hitting prospects in the minorsWe move over to the Carolina League, as we continue our annual examination of Performance for each of eighteen Minor Leagues that have affiliations with MLB organizations. Over the next three weeks we will post the Performance analysis for approximately three leagues each week until we have run through them all. It was a solid year for prospect watching in the Carolina League in 2010, but one team dominated the Performance Scores as, overall, the Royal’s affiliate in Wilmington posted five of the League’s Top 10 Scores. This may come as little surprise to prospect watchers though, as the Royals may have the best system in baseball right now, and nearly all of their top prospects spent some part of the season in Wilmington. As to the position players, two Royals’ prospects topped the list, as 2008 first round pick Eric Hosmer edged out Wil Myers.
A couple of things to remember about our Performance evaluations: 1) these are not necessarily prospect lists. While it is fair to assume that the best prospects will put up the best performances, these lists focus only on a player’s offensive performance while they were in the league during the 2010 season. They do not consider things like defensive ability, offense vs. required offense for a given position, or projectability. Prospect evaluation is a combination of art and science and this is the science part of that equation. Later in the fall, we will breakdown each team’s ‘prospects’ and rank them in ‘prospect value’ order. 2) What it is, is a comparative statistical look at each players performance, placed in context of their age, their home park, and the league. We rate each player in the five categories that we have found most significant in predicting future Major League performance. The players that rate the highest, have assembled the best ‘Performance’ in these areas. For a more detailed look at the statistics involved you can refer to previous articles on the site (http://baseballnumbers-diamondfutures.blogspot.com/2009/09/do-it-yourself-quantitative-examination.html).
A quick note about the rankings…The TOTAL is the weighted numerical value of the combined statistics that we use. It is scaled for the level of play. Typically, a player with a positive score will rank in the top 1% - 2% of all Minor League players. After the total we list the sub-scores in 4 areas of significance. These scores are presented, for ease of understanding, in a typical 20-80 scouting format. They represent how the individual player performed in those areas in relation to THE LEAGUE in question. A score of 50 represents league average. Players listed as ‘DNQ’ did not qualify for the rankings because of their limited playing time, but we felt their scores were worth noting. If you have further questions on the methodology, feel free to email me at baseballnumbers@ix.netcom.com.
A couple of things to remember about our Performance evaluations: 1) these are not necessarily prospect lists. While it is fair to assume that the best prospects will put up the best performances, these lists focus only on a player’s offensive performance while they were in the league during the 2010 season. They do not consider things like defensive ability, offense vs. required offense for a given position, or projectability. Prospect evaluation is a combination of art and science and this is the science part of that equation. Later in the fall, we will breakdown each team’s ‘prospects’ and rank them in ‘prospect value’ order. 2) What it is, is a comparative statistical look at each players performance, placed in context of their age, their home park, and the league. We rate each player in the five categories that we have found most significant in predicting future Major League performance. The players that rate the highest, have assembled the best ‘Performance’ in these areas. For a more detailed look at the statistics involved you can refer to previous articles on the site (http://baseballnumbers-diamondfutures.blogspot.com/2009/09/do-it-yourself-quantitative-examination.html).
A quick note about the rankings…The TOTAL is the weighted numerical value of the combined statistics that we use. It is scaled for the level of play. Typically, a player with a positive score will rank in the top 1% - 2% of all Minor League players. After the total we list the sub-scores in 4 areas of significance. These scores are presented, for ease of understanding, in a typical 20-80 scouting format. They represent how the individual player performed in those areas in relation to THE LEAGUE in question. A score of 50 represents league average. Players listed as ‘DNQ’ did not qualify for the rankings because of their limited playing time, but we felt their scores were worth noting. If you have further questions on the methodology, feel free to email me at baseballnumbers@ix.netcom.com.
2010 Carolina League Top Hitting Performances
Name Org POS TOTAL Reach Base Strike Zone Judgement Power Speed
1 ) Eric Hosmer , KCR , 1B - 1.72 … 78 … 78 … 67 … 79
2 ) William Myers , KCR , C - 1.23 … 80 … 63 … 63 … 33
3 ) Devin Mesoraco , CIN , C - 0.75 … 68 … 65 … 80 … 36
4 ) Chun-Hsiu Chen , CLE , C - 0.64 … 79 … 56 … 75 … 52
5 ) Salvador Perez , KCR , C - 0.61 … 54 … 79 … 51 … 32
6 ) Oscar Tejeda , BOS , 2B - 0.49 … 53 … 63 … 53 … 75
7 ) LJ Hoes , BAL , 2B - 0.01 … 76 … 60 … 35 … 53
8 ) Anthony Rizzo , BOS , 1B - 0.01 … 32 … 32 … 77 … 53
9 ) Jordan Henry , CLE , CF - 0.01 … 80 … 70 … 24 … 80
10 ) Xavier Avery , BAL , CF - (0.08) … 60 … 54 … 37 … 77
11 ) Derek Norris , WSN , C - (0.16) … 79 … 23 … 71 … 54
12 ) Rey Navarro , KCR , SS - (0.18) … 31 … 78 … 35 … 43
13 ) Christian Colon , KCR , SS - (0.24) … 54 … 76 … 40 … 33
14 ) Neftali Soto , CIN , 1B - (0.24) … 33 … 59 … 73 … 29
15 ) Travis Jones , ATL , 2B - (0.30) … 51 … 37 … 69 … 46
16 ) Stephen Lombardozzi , WSN , 2B - (0.33) … 67 … 76 … 35 … 74
17 ) Alex Hassan , BOS , RF - (0.41) … 71 … 59 … 62 … 64
18 ) Michael Burgess , WSN , RF - (0.43) … 55 … 47 … 61 … 53
19 ) Mathew Kennelly , ATL , C - (0.45) … 43 … 71 … 52 … 29
20 ) Ryan Lavarnway , BOS , DH - (0.51) … 69 … 58 … 74 … 36
21 ) Alex Buchholz , CIN , 3B - (0.58) … 44 … 76 … 61 … 50
22 ) Brandon Short , CHA , OF - (0.68) … 48 … 52 … 62 … 39
23 ) Peter Hissey , BOS , CF - (0.72) … 46 … 29 … 29 … 79
24 ) Greg Miclat , BAL , SS - (0.73) … 76 … 71 … 37 … 70
25 ) Bo Greenwell , CLE , LF - (0.76) … 77 … 54 … 31 … 64
DNQ Denis Phipps , CIN , RF - 0.04 … 35 … 58 … 80 … 77
DNQ Tyler Townsend , BAL , 1B - (0.52) … 50 … 50 … 76 … 36
DNQ Cody Johnson , ATL , LF - (0.65) … 46 … 23 … 79 … 37
Posts
Derek Norris 23 out of 80 for strike zone judgment? Is that a typo? If not can you explain the methodology?
ReplyDeleteI know he strikes out a lot but he walks a ton and it would seem that the K problem is a contact problem and not a strike zone judgment problem.
We have tried to develop short labels to represent long formulas. Some of them aren't necessarily as descriptively accurate as we would perhaps like. While Norris has an excellent ability to wait for a walk, he does strike out quite a bit (24% in the CAR). The measure that you refer to is more of a KRate indicator, whereby the walkrate is reflected in our FirstBaseRate indicator. From a regression standpoint, it made more sense to construct it that way. The problem really lies in the labelling, but for a more complete description of the methodology you can go to the article referenced in the post above. Thanks!
ReplyDelete