Another top 100 prospect list

[Rog]

Just came across a mid-summer top 100 prospects list.  It's a pretty good list.  The Phillies' Rhys Hoskins, who got two hits and a walk against the Giants last night and came within inches of a third knock, is ranked only #71.  And all he's done is hit three homers in his first week and a half in the majors.

The Giants didn't place a single player on the list, although three of them were listed among "others considered:"  Tyler Beede, Christian Arroyo and Bryan Reynolds, who as was shown on last night's telecast is hitting well at San Jose.  I wish we could get a scouting report from Randy or Moo or someone else in the area (Gary?).

One thing these other teams are coming  up with is athletes.  Turns out first baseman Cody Bellinger of the Dodgers is one of the fastest players in the league.  No wonder he had no problem playing left field until Adrian Gonzalez went down.  Last night Hoskins, playing left field for nearly the first time in his career as a first baseman, looked like an actual outfielder tracking down a drive to deep left-center.  No baby giraffe he.

Coming out of Vanderbilt, Reynolds was considered to have the eye (possibly the best in his class) and speed to hit lead off.  Only his arm was believed to hamper his ability to play center field.  Thus far in the minors, Bryan's eye hasn't translated well into walks (a career 151/45 K/BB ratio), but his .311 batting average has fueled a .362 OBP and a .460 SLG.  Even with just six career steals, that works for a lead off man.  He's going to have to either keep his average high or find a way to draw walks if he is to maintain that ability.

The Giants' athlete is this year's first-round pick, outfielder Heliot Ramos.  Ramos has bounced back from a slump and once again has a 1.000+ OPS.  He's hitting .338 with a 1.008 OPS, with 6 home runs and 9 steals.  46 strikeouts and only 8 walks in 133 at bats are worrisome, but Ramos won't turn 18 until September and is 4 years two months younger than the average player in the rookie league.  It's been a while since a Giants draftee made a bigger splash in his draft season. 

Here's a thought to consider.  By the time Ramos is the age of the average rookie league player, he'll likely be in the Giants' outfield.  That's an exciting though.

Who knows?  Maybe he'll be in center field flanked by Austin Slater and Reynolds.  Madison Bumgarner should still be pitching effectively, and Buster Posey might be making that transition to first base.

[klaiggeb]

I haven't seen Reynolds, but I REALLY liked Austin Slater.

What did I like most?

A couple of things.

1-His short, quick, powerful swing.

2-How long his bat was in the hitting zone.

3-How quickly he made the adjustment to playing at this level.

Can he do it over a full season?

I'd really like to find out.

boly

[Rog]

Watching Austin hit, I felt better about him than his numbers projected. He might have had a little luck.

Austin hit the ball hard only 25% of the times, and his line drive rate of 14% was very low. That casts doubt on his .342 Batting Average on Balls In Play. He struck out only once every five at bats, which may be sustainable, although his 11.4% swinging strike rate indicates maybe not. He swung at only 29% of pitches outside the strike zone, which isn't bad.

To me, Austin's career would greatly benefit if he could play a nice center field. I don't think he'll hit quite enough for a corner outfield spot, although his hitting might be acceptable in center.

I think Austin had some luck in finding holes and that he looked a little better than he truly is.

Like Boly, I'd like to see if Austin can keep it up over a full season. But my educated guess would be that he won't.

Austin did hit well in the minors though, and at time he walked enough for a lead off man. He has very good speed, but he hasn't yet translated it into base stealing. That too would help. Mostly though, that speed needs to play in center field IMO.

I wish I were more positive on these prospects. I think I may be more so with Reynolds, although playing three levels away from the majors, it's tough to tell. Remember, Gary Brown was OUTSTANDING at the same level. He needs to take a walk though if he is to be an acceptable lead off man. He's also not a guy who steals bases.

Actually, the more I look at these outfield prospects, the less impressed I have become. And the Giants need help there more than anywhere else.

Maybe though one of the young guys can play center field; they can trade for a nice outfielder; and they can pick up a one-dimensional power hitter for the outfield.

Or Parker can surprise me.

[Rog]

I did just come across a recent top 100 prospects that had Christian Arroyo ahead of Rhys Hoskins. I don't believe it, but clearly someone does, and that's something nice to look at.

Maybe Heliot Ramos can play well enough to crack a top 100 list this winter. With his not turning 18 until next month, that would be quite an accomplishment. Most likely most prognosticators will want to see him succeed at a higher level though.

And with his high strikeout and low walk rates, understandably so. But a year or two from now, it wouldn't surprise me if Ramos became the Giants' top prospect.

Here is what Chris Sabo wrote about Ramos just prior to the high school draft, where the Giants selected him with the 19th overall pick. Ramos comes from a very athletic family; his brother Hector plays forward for the Puerto Rican national soccer team. One of his other brothers is Henry Ramos who currently plays baseball in the Los Dodgers organization and was once ranked as a top-30 prospect in the Boston Red Sox system (29).

Scouting Report:

Heliot is toolsier than his older brother, and plus speed, and has a plus arm in center. His speed and arm should allow him to stick in center, and there aren’t many questions surrounding his defense. Some say he’ll end in right-field, but overall, he’s considered an average defender.

Ramos is deemed to have plus raw power and impressed scouts with some big home run at last years Under Armour All-America Game. The only questions scouts have about his power is if his hit tool will be good enough for that power to show up in games.

Ramos’ hit tool is very questionable and is a reason he’s a polarizing prospect.


Perhaps Ramos' fine hitting in the rookie league is allaying some of the fears about his hitting tool. It appears he's plenty good enough as an athlete.

[Rog]

By the way, it's not hard to find scouting reports on most of the Giants' top prospects. Just put the player's name and "scouting report" in your browser. Kind of nice to know what's coming down the pike, isn't it?

I don't do as good a job as I should here, but I occasionally look guys up. It's well worth the effort.

[Rog]

Incidentally, Don probably read a scouting report or two on Ramos. Remember that he questioned Ramos' hitting, which clearly was a concern of some of the teams. At least 18 of them.

[klaiggeb]

A lot of Austin's hits were flukes, Rog, that's for sure.

But notice I never mentioned his batting average.

What I said was specific;

1-His short, quick, powerful swing.

2-How long his bat was in the hitting zone.

3-How quickly he made the adjustment to playing at this level.



If he's truly ready, he could be one of those guys whose minor league numbers aren't what his MLB numbers will be.

I've been wrong before, I could be wrong here.

But I still like him.

And the interesting thing was... in his first few at bats, I did NOT like him.

boly

[Rog]

Austin has some nice attributes at the plate. But I doubt if he had hit only .230 or so, we'd be talking about him as highly. And his results appear to have been better than his actual hitting.

I'm having a bit of a tough time finding detailed scouting reports on Austin, but Bleacher Reports cited him as one of the top second-day picks of the 2014 draft. When he came out of high school in 2011, he was ranked among the top 10 third basemen in an article in which the writer said he really liked Austin's swing.

[klaiggeb]

If you were listening to the pre game last night, KUIPER singled out Slater.

He didn't talk about fluke hits, he talked about Slater's at bats.

Kuiper knows the game and knows it well. Certainly better than I do, and he LOVES Slater.

So once again I'm pressed to notice that, just like with Parker, you seem obsessed with pointing out what Slater HASN'T done, rather than pointing out what he HAS done, and also that EVERY pitcher he faces he's never seen before.

That's not only NOT fair, Rog, that's a pretty narrow perspective.

boly

[Rog]

Austin began his career 2 for 12 before he began hitting. We didn't like him at first but then liked his short, quick swing, which stayed in the strike zone a long time.

So one of the following likely happened:

. Austin made a fundamental adjustment.

. He improved something important in his swing.

. When his hits began to fall, we noticed positive things we hadn't seen before or hadn't given enough credit to.

. Or we began to see him a new light as the hits began to fall.


I guess my question is -- and I don't think there is any way of knowing for sure -- did Austin change, or was it merely our perception that changed? Maybe some of each.

[Islandboagie]

Krukow or Kuiper liking anyone doesn't prove much, they like everyone in a Giants uniform. They rant and rave about Jeff Samardzija and think every player is the nicest guy they've ever met.

[klaiggeb]

Roger-I guess my question is -- and I don't think there is any way of knowing for sure -- did Austin change, or was it merely our perception that changed? Maybe some of each.

**boly says**

I can't speak for the others, but I can say that... for ME, it had NOTHING, and I mean ZERO to do with hits that fell.

For ME, it was as simple as this; his swing did NOT look like any normal swing I'd seen in a while.

In fact, I made a post to that effect.

It took me awhile to figure out that he swings at a slightly downward plane, not with an upward lift as 99% of hitters do.

He swings the way they were teaching when I first got to college in 1968; "Swing down on the ball to create backspin."


Thus I don't believe he made any changes at all.

None.

He continued to do what he'd always done, and hits just started to fall.

boly

[Rog]

So apparenty it was our perception that changed.

[Rog]

We have a very small sample on both Austin Slater and Rhys Hoskins, but they show why
Hoskins isn't figuratively even in the same league as Austin as a prospect.

I want to make sure we're understanding how small these sample sizes are, especially in the case of Hoskins. Small enough that lots of luck can be involved. But if we look at the process rather than the results, which we'll try to do here, we will be able to see differences that may change in magnitude but give us a decent picture of the true differences between the two.

Let's begin with contact. As Boly mentioned, Slater is a bit of a down-swinging hitter who should make much more contact than the hard-swinging Hoskins. Not the case though. Not even close.

If we know that one player made contact 88% of the time and the other 76%, we would expect the former to be Slater. But we would be wrong. Another way to look at this is that 12% of the time, Hoskins has missed with is swings. 24% of the time Slater has missed. In other words, (somewhat) slap-hitting Slater has missed the ball twice as often as the power-hitting Hoskins. That doubling may not continue, but it appears unlikely that as odd as it seems, it is unlikely that Slater will become more of a contact hitter than Hoskins.

(We should note that pitchers will adjust to Hoskins, and he'll need to make his own counter-adjustments. Slater presumably has gone through some of that process already.)

Here is an astounding fact that further separates Hoskins and Slater. On pitches in the strike zone, Hoskins has missed with only 2% -- TWO PERCENT -- of his swings. Slater has made good contact as well, but he has missed 10% of the time.

Slater has an 11% swinging strike rate. Hoskins has swung and missed at under 5% of the pitches thrown to him.

How about the quality of the contact? Slater has hit the ball hard on a quarter of his balls put into play. Hoskins has nearly doubled Austin, hitting the ball hard 48% of the time. Hoskins hasn't hit the ball harder on average than Slater (both have the ball 88 mph), but he has hit the ball an average of 248 feet compared to Slater's 188 feet. Think Hoskins will hit a few more home runs?

Slater will be limited by his heavy propensity for ground balls. He's hit the ball on the ground three out of every five swings. In stark contrast, Hoskins has hit the ball on the ground only two out of nine swings. It's hard to hit for power on ground balls. Last season Hoskins had the sixth-lowest ground ball rate of any hitter in AA, and this season his ground ball rate was the 10th-lowest in AAA. Slater must have been among the leaders in the minor leagues he's played in.

We can't expect Hoskins to keep hitting nearly this many home runs, but he has put up a .264 batting average based on a pitcher-like .154 average on Balls In Play. As often as he has hit the ball hard, he's obviously had a fair amount of balls like the line drive out he hit to left against Madison Bumgarner. In contrast, Slater has a .342 BABIP despite hitting the ball hard only half as often as Hoskins.

As surprising as it seems, Hoskins has thus far hit in bad luck, while Slater hit in at least decent luck.

How about walk rate, since it's important that a hitter -- and particular a potential lead off hitter such as Slater -- get on base. Hoskins has walked three times as often as Austin.

So Hoskins has a better eye, makes better contact, makes hard contact far more often, and hits the ball in the air far more frequently. That's why Hoskins is a far better prospect than Slater.

Hoskins won't keep hitting this many home runs. But it is clear that his process as a hitter is much better than Slater's. Or Jarrett Parker's, etc., etc.

As for Jarrett, he certainly is hot right now. And, frankly, he's hit pretty well in his major league career. But his process isn't really that good, and he'll likely level out.

It would be great if Jarrett could keep his recent hitting up, but he hit much better as a rookie, and that didn't continue. If Jarrett is to succeed, he's going to have to hit for a lot of power and walk a lot to help offset all his strikeouts. Yet Hoskins walked as often (five times) just in the Giants series as Parker has walked all season. Hoskins hit five homers last week. Parker has hit one on the season.

Parker has struck out three times every 10 trips to the plate. Hoskins has fanned once every seven trips. Parker is a free swinger with good power. Hoskins is a controlled swinger with very good to excellent power.

Hoskins simply has a process that is far better than either Parker of Slater. More contact than Slater and more power than Parker.

The Phillies wouldn't trade Hoskins for BOTH Slater and Parker. Throw in Tyler Beede? No dice. Add Christian Arroyo? Not yet. How about Steven Duggar, who just got promoted from San Jose to Sacramento and could be the Giants' center fielder of the future. The Phillies might begin to think about it. That would be five for one, and the Phillies would still likely demur.

Throw in Ty Blach? Still probably no deal. The Giants simply don't have enough young talent to make it attractive for the Phillies to trade the kid from Sacramento and Sacramento State.

Here is what makes Hoskins so valuable. He has a chance to be an All-Star level player the next six seasons -- and the Phillies might pay him less for those six seasons than the Giants pay Buster Posey for two. Having a prospect like Hoskins under team control for six more seasons is quite an asset.

Even as unproven as Hoskins is, the only players the Phillies might consider trading him straight up for are Buster and Madison. And they probably wouldn't even do that. Buster is 30 now and is making over $20 million per season. Madison is making only $12 million, but he's locked up for only two more seasons. Given that the Phillies are trying to turn things around, Hoskins likely has more value to them, even though he's far from proven.

Boly asked a good question about Hoskins and the Phillies: Why would they play him in left field when he's a first baseman? I think the answer comes from a projection for the rest of the season that was made when Hoskins was called up. He was projected to be the Phillies' best hitter the rest of the season, and first baseman Tommy Joseph was projected to be their third-best.

When Jarrett Parker, Austin Slater, Christian Arroyo or Ryder Jones were first called up, would any reasonable person have projected them to be the Giants' best hitter the rest of the season?

Hoskins was projected for a .358 weighted on-base average (an all-around rating that should compare numerically with what an on-base percentage means). Clearly Posey is the Giants' best hitter. Buster's wOBA this season is .375. Over his career, it is .366. Should give us an idea of how good a hitter Hoskins can become.

Not that he will keep up anything approaching it, but Hoskins' wOBA so far in his brief major league career is .418. He won't keep it up. Then again, in the minors in 2015 it was .419. It fell all the way to .414 last season but was back up to .419 in AAA this season.

And Hoskins has that lofty figure despite a .237 major league batting average. Hoskins' BA will very likely increase, while Parker's and eventually Slater's will both likely decline.

Their process just doesn't compare to Hoskins, so as their small samples grow, Hoskins should easily outpace the two.

And let's not forget that in 47 total plate appearances, Hoskins has put up his spectacular .418 wOBA despite like Willie Mays, beginning his career by going 0 for 12. I'm certainly not saying he will be another Willie -- no one in his right mind knows enough to do so, and if he knew that much, it is highly unlikely it would equate Hoskins with Willie. What I'm saying is that Hoskins has a chance to have an excellent career.

And I knew that before I'd ever seen him take a swing. Heck, I picked him up as a free agent for my fantasy team before he had even taken a major league swing. I did let him go briely so I could sign the red-hot Eddie Rosario, but I was hoping that someone smart like Mark wouldn't pick him up on waivers, and as soon as he cleared them, I signed him back again.

When a guy hits very few ground balls, has excellent power and very fine plate control, his chances of success are very good. I didn't even have to see him play to know that.

I realize guys here don't get much chance to watch the Giants' or other teams' prospects. But learn to interpret the numbers, and you can have a decent idea of the impact these young guys might make on their major league teams.

I scouted Tim Lincecum when no one else here took the time to do so (and for most, it would have been difficult). But Tim peaked my interest when I saw that he had struck out 199 batters in 125 college innings. Tim's 63 walks portended lesser things to come, but he turned out to be a pretty good pitcher.

The four players I went specifically to see at San Jose were Tim, Buster, Madison and Tim Alderson. As I posted here when I saw him pitch, Alderson didn't have a good fastball, which led the Giants to trade him for Freddy Sanchez, but the other three turned out OK.

Not only did I see more of Lineceum's minor league than anyone I know, I got to see the bullpen session with Madison pitching to Buster right before the first regular season game in which Buster caught Bumgarner. The crowd by the end of the bullpen was pretty big, but only three of us saw the entire bullpen. Two of them were my son and I.

And people here say all I see is the numbers. Seriously?

Not that the numbers can't tell us quite a story. They help us study the game as well as watch it. I'd like to think that while watching major league games for close to 65 years I've studied it a bit that way too.

But my knowledge began to grow at an even faster pace when I realized what the numbers can do. Study them -- and I mean truly STUDY them with an open mind -- before you criticize them.

A decade ago teams were just beginning to use the numbers. Today teams have large staffs to do so. And never has baseball been played with such knowledge. The physical skill is better too, so it's no wonder we've never seen better baseball.

Now the PLAYERS are even getting into the numbers -- and making changes to their games based on them.

For those who don't pay enough attention to the numbers and understand what they truly mean and can provide, I'll say the same thing players, coaches and fans have frequently said to umpires over the years. You're missing a good game.

By the way, those who still say that numbers lie, don't understand them. Liars figure, but figures don't lie. It's just that some twist them, while others simply don't understand them well enough not to be fooled.

We used to make comments like "man, that guy swings and misses a lot." Now we know just how often he swings and misses, how often he makes contact, how often that contact is hard, medium or soft, how hard the ball leaves his bat, and how far it travels.

What we used to understand in sort of a broad way, we now can see concisely and accurately.

Boly made a comment a year ago that Brandon Belt didn't hit the ball to left field enough. Had he studied the actual results, he would have seen that Brandon hit the ball the other way plenty (more often, for instance, than Joe Panik), but that he didn't do so EFFECTIVELY.

Brandon hit way too many fly balls to left and not enough grounders. Boly commented that if Buster hit the ball to the opposite field as often as I said he did, teams wouldn't use the over-shift against him. What he might not have considered is that teams sometimes DID shade left field a little bit against him -- in the outfield. But he hit so few ground balls that way that the over-shift was the best way to defeat his hitting.

Brandon hit .341 to left field a year ago. That sounds pretty good -- until one considers the deflating factor on batting average of striking out, which Brandon did plenty of. He hit .366 to center field and a nice .421 to right.

We watch the game and we don't always perceive it accurately. That is why scouting reports differ, sometimes by a remarkable amount. Our memory plays tricks on us. These are both scientific facts.

The numbers tell us the facts. The better we are at interpreting them, the more we will understand.

Or we can simply take the uninformed position that figures lie. If they lie to us, it's because we don't know enough to properly interpret them. Sometimes that means looking at the numbers behind the numbers. And the numbers behind the numbers are becoming better and more extensive.

Some say the game on the field hasn't changed much. But our ability to LOOK at it, to understand what is REALLY happening, has improved immensely in the past decade or two.

You might say a player got a good jump on a fly ball, while I say he got a poor or average one. But the numbers can tell us how quickly he reacted and how pure his route was to the ball. It can also tell us how long the ball was in the air and the maximum speed the fielder reached in retrieving it.

That should pretty much resolve the discrepancy in what we each "saw." The figures don't lie. But those who don't understand them fully figure they do.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But facts aren't. Facts can be measured.

[Rog]

So once again I'm pressed to notice that, just like with Parker, you seem obsessed with pointing out what Slater HASN'T done, rather than pointing out what he HAS done, and also that EVERY pitcher he faces he's never seen before.


Rog -- That last point is a good one, Boly, although somehow many good hitters find a way to hit pitchers they haven't seen before. Remember too that the pitcher hasn't seen the hitter.

In fairness, I have pointed out what Parker has done. This season he has struck out three out of every 10 times he's come to the plate. He's hit the ball hard once every four times he's hit it in the seats or in the field of play. Heck, he's hit one ball out of the park (although not literally). He has hit the ball on all but 10% of the pitches thrown to him (an improvement) and has hit it just over three out of four times he's swung.

I have examined his process, whereas you have focused on his mechanics (important) and his results (which can be skewed).

I hope Jarrett has figured it out. He's certainly been hot the past week or so. His results over his brief career really haven't been bad overall. But if he is truly going to improve, he's going to have to strike out less and/or hit the ball hard more often.

Jarrett has been hot. But will he stay that way consistently? Remember, early this season we complimented Jarrett for not wiggling his bat nearly as much. We thought he had solved at least some of his problems. Yet when he was injured, he was hitting just .143/.455. (I do think he had resumed the wiggling.)

I would ask you, what are the specifics of how Jarrett has changed to enable him to hit so well this past week or so? How have each of those specifics changed his swing for the better? What are the risks he faces that he might lose those changes? What would you personally have him drill on to avoid losing it?

When he was in his strikeout mode right before he began this streak, what was it he was doing wrong? How did he make such a quick change in results?

To his credit, Jarrett has struck out only two times in his last six games. But immediately prior to that, he has struck out nine times in 19 at bats. If we combine the two, he's struck out 11 times in his past 42 at bats, which is indeed an improvement. During his hot streak, he has only three extra bases on his nine hits, but there is certainly nothing wrong with going 9 for 23.

If he's truly hitting better, his process will show it. Maybe that process has already begun. I guess we should stay tuned.

Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/4038/another-top-100-prospect-list?page=1#ixzz4qVssHNt9

[Rog]

If Jarrett has truly improved, he'll be striking out less and hitting the ball hard more often.

[Rog]

Maybe that is already happening. Let's see.

[Rog]

One thing Boly has told us may offer some insight into Rhys Hoskins. Boly has talked about how tough it is for a young player to bat third. Hoskins did so Sunday for the second time in his career. Against Madison Bumgarner no less. He went 2 for 5 with a home run.

Hoskins has batted third or fourth in all but one of his 11 games this season.

It is a tribute to Jarrett Parker that he is now batting third as well. Jarrett has batted third in 11 of his 24 starts and has acquitted himself well with a .318 average and a .797 OPS.

[Rog]

So what does Rhys Hoskins do today? He hits a two-run homer in his first at bat.

There's still no guarantee Hoskins will have even a good major league career, of course. But do you see why -- even before seeing him swing -- I (unfortunately was more excited about him than any of the Giants' prospects?

I'm excited, by the way, about Heliot Ramos. The 17-year-old is hitting .348 with a 1.049 OPS -- in a league where the players are 4 years, two months older on average than he. But whereas Hoskins even at the AAA level had nearly as many walks as strikeouts, Ramos had struck out 48 times with only 10 walks. Still a highly impressive performance from what some scouts though was more an athlete than a ballplayer.

Then there is Gregory Santos, the 17-year-old ground ball pitcher the Giants acquired in the Eduardo Nunez trade. Santos has a 1.45 ERA on the season, striking out 38 (very good for a ground ball pitcher) in 44.2 innings. Santos has induced slightly more than three times as many ground outs than air outs this season. Much further to go even than Ramos, but exciting nonetheless.

The other pitcher, Shaun Anderson, has posted a so-so 3.78 ERA for San Jose, but in 16.2 innings, he's allowed just 13 hits and one walk while posting a 0.84 WHIP and striking out a dozen. He too has done nothing to make the trade look bad.

If we're going to disparage the Nunez deal, we should at least keep up with the players the Giants received, shouldn't we?

It should be noted that Nunez himself has been terrific for the Red Sox.

And speaking of another Giant who left around the trade deadline, George "Give it up" Kontos has posted a 1.80 ERA and a 0.60 WHIP with seven strikeouts and one walk in his five innings with the Pirates. The Buccos have used George exclusively in the seventh and eighth innings, and he has recorded three holds with one blown hold.

[Rog]

My point here is that it is because the Giants don't have any true top prospects that I am in favor of changing things around.

Slater and Parker have a chance to be starters. Arroyo should be a solid player. Maybe Stratton will come through. Beede is a question mark, but one who might provide a positive answer.

But the Giants just don't have any prospects that approach Seager, Bellinger and Urias of the Dodgers, just over the past two seasons. They don't have a Rhys Hoskins-type prospect. They likely don't have any true top 50 prospects.

That's not to say they don't have guys who can't play. Particularly in the outfield they have more minor league depth (especially if we include Slater) than any time I can remember. But they mostly have depth, not the type of player a team can build around.

That's why I'm excited about Ramos. He has a long, long way to go,and he's showing some negatives already, but he's been a big success thus far and could become the Giants' center fielder for the next decade.

I'm excited about Santos because while he's a long shot at best, he might have the talent to become a top-of-the-rotation starter. I'm excited about the player Boagie and I believe Don as well presented to us as well -- Steven Duggar, just promoted from San Jose (scouting report anyone?) to Sacramento. That's a nice jump in levels. Not a star, but perhaps a solid player at a position the Giants need younger help with.

Over the past dozen years, the Giants have build themselves around stars. Tim Lincecum, Madison Bumgarner and Buster Posey. Hopefully Ramos will become that type of talent, and the Giants will draft another next June. If the season ended today, the Giants would have the #2 overall draft pick. Even Lincecum, Bumgarner and Posey weren't that high.

The Giants are hoping for a quick turnaround, so my guess is that they'll choose a college player, quite possibly a pitcher who could jump to the majors within a year as Lincecum did. I hope though that they simply go for the best player available. If he happens to be a year or so away from the major leagues, so much the better.

But the key is to leverage off a possible fine pick such as Ramos and come up with a true future superstar next June. That's not nearly as easy as it seems, by the way, but the odds are better with most college players than high school players, simply because of the development time, which for a high school player allows more chance for something to go wrong.

But as Boagie said, let's hope this year is remembered not for its failures but for the superstar player it yields in next year's draft. Even at #2 the chances of another Lincecum, Bumgarner or Posey are probably no better than 50/50. But at least it's a good CHANCE.

Would we ever like it if some young player like Santos bloomed down the road. And maybe another couple of guys. Having a top second-round draft choice is almost like having a low first-rounder, which is where Joe Panik for instance came. Jarrett Parker was a second rounder. Brandon Crawford was a second or third rounder.

Barring a Giants semi-miracle where September and October become next year's key months, June should be the most exciting month of next year. That will also, of course, but the month the Warriors win another World Championship.

I'm shocked by the way Boly that you don't like basketball. It's got far more action than baseball and a lot more strategy too. Plus, the players are better athletes.

Soccer I can understand not liking. But action sports like basketball and hockey are among the most exciting of all.

[klaiggeb]

Roger, you simply can't measure how much I hate basket ball.

I DON'T need fast paced action.

I prefer games where stopping, and planning is important.

Basketball ain't that.

It's all done on the run.

I grew up with Chess where planing ahead is premium.

boly

[Rog]

Here's the thing about that logic though. If you like planning even more than action, you should.be a soccer lover, and we know you're not that. Soccer may be the most popular game in the world, so despite neither you nor I (nor most of America) liking it, clearly there's something to it.

The lack of action is why baseball is struggling to keep up with football and basketball as the American game. And while you dislike fantasy baseball, it is one of the things that is keeping as much young interest in the game as is the case.

Of course, baseball should get a little smarter too, such as having each league play by the same rules. I enjoy bunt plays, but I can also make an argument for using the DH universally.

But for crying out loud, choose one or the other. Baseball already has its uniqueness in that each park is different. The game is becoming more innovative, but what possible argument can be made by playing with different rules?

[Rog]

If you like chess, Boly, fantasy baseball should be right up your alley. There are all sorts of ways to plan ahead in the game -- as well as daily decisions to make.

And guess what? It involves one of your favorite activities. (You know, that game played on the grass by nine participants, faced one at a time? It's really a fun game.

While it doesn't involve in-game decisions, it's about our only chance to play both GM and manager in baseball. We set lineups, draft our roster, make trades, pick players up off waivers, "sign" free agents, and make cuts.

One thing I have learned about (or from) is knowing when to cut a player. Just as in the real deal, one has to decide whether say a good player having a tough year will bounce back. Is it better to hang with that player or to pick up a young guy (or veteran) getting off to a quick start?

Whom do I start in my lineup? Do I platoon, or do I let that good left-handed hitter play today even though a southpaw is starting? Do I play a guy because of how he has hit against the pitcher he's facing? Do I pay attention to the stadium, whether home or away, what the weather is, and which way the wind is blowing that particular day? Do I pick a player to play because for instance he will be facing a finesse pitcher, and he hits well against finesse pitchers?

Do I consider how likely a player is to be pinch hit for or removed in a defensive substitution or in a double switch?

When I'm picking my roster, how much of a premium do I put on a player's position flexibility? Do I choose a better player at a position I already have a good starter for (perhaps with the idea of trading him), or do I pick a lesser player for a position of more need?

Do I pay attention to where in the lineup a player hits, since the higher it is, the more likely he is to get an extra at bat? Do I balance lead off men who are likely to score runs with third and fourth hitters who are more likely to drive them in?

How valuable is a player who can steal bases for us? How do we handle our pitching staff?

What we're talking about here is pretty much all the decisions made by a GM or manager -- except those that go on during the game. And we're talking about the very best players. The replacement level for players in a fantasy league are very, very high compared to regular baseball.

How do we handle our roster when it comes to injuries. Usually a team has only one disabled list spot. If we want to hang onto a player, he may have to take up an active roster spot. For instance, I can't put both Bryce Harper and Carlos Correa on the DL right now. One of them has to take up one of the 20 spots I have on my roster -- even though the player can't play, sometimes for a very long time.

Do I pick players from the same team, knowing that a rain out might cost me two or three roster spots instead of just one? Do I pick hitters from high-scoring teams, since those hitters are more likely to score and drive in runs, and are more likely to have an extra at bat or two during the game?

It's not chess, but fantasy involves a plethora of choices on a daily basis. Like for a real manager or GM, those decisions can be agonizing. Fortunately if we cut a player, we don't have to break the bad news to him face-to-face.

In my first season I cut Robinson Cano. Glad I didn't have to tell a future Hall of Famer he wasn't good enough for my team. Cano was one of those decisions that involve whether to hold onto a great player who is slumping, or trade him or release him for a "lesser" player who is having a better season.

Releasing Cano didn't turn out to be my best move, even though he was playing very poorly. Virtually the day I released him, he turned his season around.

This season I cut Rougned Odor, even though he's known as a second-half player. I was going to pick him right back up, but the ever-diligent Mark scooped him up first. I also cut Brian Dozier this year. Apparently I don't understand second basemen!

I will say that the decisions made in the game are less like those in chess than like those made by a baseball manager and GM. But as a huge fan of the game, I'm not sure that is a bad thing.

Of course, learning about the players on every team is a big disadvantage. Who would want to know more about baseball?

[Rog]

And of course we have to make choices like:

. Do I trade Manny Machado and D.J. LeMahieu for Paul Goldschmidt?

. Goldschmidt for Votto?

. How about trading the game's best-hitting catcher (Gary Sanchez, not Buster Posey) in order to balance out my roster at other positions?

. Do I trade for Carlos Correa even though he's going to be on the DL for most of the rest of the season?

. Do I make 2-for-1 trades knowing that I am giving up more but also knowing I can pick up a very high replacement-level player to fill in the gap?


It's not chess. It's baseball. If I get rooked, it's not because I made a bad move; it's because I made a bad trade.

By the way, Mark's son is KILLING me this week!

[Rog]

I mentioned that Hoskins hit a two-run homer in his first at bat last night. The Phillies played a double header, and he wound up 2 for 7 with a homer and a walk.

Tonight he's 1 for 2 with a homer and a walk. He now has 7 homers and 10 walks in his first two weeks.

With the possible exception of 17-year-old Heliot Ramos, the Giants just don't have prospects like that. Part of it is that the Giants have focused more on pitchers, but since Joe Panik, they haven't fared especially well period.

Wouldn't it be nice though if the Giants -- like the Phillies -- had come out of this wreckage of a season with someone like Hoskins?

And I hope you remember, Boly, that I mentioned Hoskins right when he came up -- not after his seven homers (only two of which came against the Giants). It's not that I'm brilliant, but the numbers do complement a scouting report nicely. I hadn't had the chance to scout Hoskins at that point, but the numbers said he had a high chance to be really good.

Entering tonight, he has hit the ball hard exactly half the time, which is fabulous. He has walked as often as he had stuck out, which is rare from a power hitter (and was one of the big reasons I liked him).

While he pulled the ball a lot against the Giants, he has pulled the ball two-fifths of the time, gone to center a third of the time, and gone to the opposite field a quarter of the time. That's not all that far from Joe Pank's distribution, including a virtually identical rate of going the opposite way.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that he's made more contact than Joe, who is one of the best in the game at doing so.

And now he's gone 2 for 3 tonight with 5 RBI's. He's really not this good. He really isn't. No one is.

[klaiggeb]

Ya'll have fun.

It's not for me.

boly

[Rog]

Everyone has different tastes, so even though the second word in fantasy baseball is baseball, I realize you don't care for the game. (Although I would ask, have you ever played? I didn't expect to like it either and never would have played if not to help out my son.)

I also don't think it's right to be critical of those who do play fantasy. A lot of them have pretty good knowledge of the game and its players. For me, not only do I live it, but it's just another way to continue to learn about the game. I sure know a heck of a lot more about the players and prospects than I did.

[klaiggeb]

I have played, Rog, way back when it first started.

Didn't like it, still don't like it.

I'd much rather play Strat-O-Matic baseball.

boly

[Rog]

Report on Gregory Santos and Shaun Anderson:

Santos -- With a 1.38, he's still getting results, but while he still has a high ground ball rate, the skill that set him apart now sets him apart by much less. He has a high WHIP but has been striking batters out nicely.

Anderson -- He was cruising along nicely this season, until his last two starts. He's been bombed in both, something that hadn't really happened previously. He must have a sore arm or has really lost his mechanics. If he has a bad start next time out (around the middle of next week), my stress level will go from concern to worry.

Regarding fantasy, it's almost always different strokes for different folks. I like that I can be doing something else but check back in and see that the scoring can change at bat by at bat. When I posted about Marks' son being ahead of me, he had gone around me that day. But by the end of the day, I was back ahead. The scoring can change quickly -- kind of like a baseball game.

Regarding the Phillies rookie Hoskins, another homer yesterday. When he first came up, I thought he might take his 29 homers in AAA up to 35 total between the minors and majors by the end of the season. With a 37 total already, it appears he's close to shoo-in for 40, and 45 doesn't seem at all out of the question.

Looking at him in the minors compared to Christian Arroyo, we saw far more power from Hoskins -- and on an excellent BB/K ratio. With Arroyo, we see very modest power, a reasonable strikeout rate, and very few walks.

Arroyo's raw numbers such as batting average were at least as good in AAA this season before his call up as were Hoskins. But Christian's poor BB/K ratio portended that he wouldn't be as good a major leaguer as the more powerful, better bat control Hoskins.

In the majors of course, Hoskins' performance has killed Arroyo's. And let's look at the plate control numbers:

Contact rate: Arroyo 82% Hoskins 86% A power hitter with a better contact rate than a contact hitter?

Chase rate: Arroyo 36% Hoskins 35% Very close in a category one would expect Arroyo (contact hitter) to win easily over the power hitter

Swinging strike rate: Arroyo 9% Hoskins 6% Arroyo's number is good. For a power hitter, Hoskins' number has been spectacular. Hoskins' number would be excellent for a contact hitter.

BB/K ratio: Arroyo 1/32 Hoskins 11/10 Arroyo has been shocking bad here. Because he got some timely hits early, we thought he was hitting well. In reality, he as hitting just OK. Then he collapsed. Hoskins has scorched hotter and longer than anyone could have expected.

Hard-hit ball rate: Arroyo 28% Hoskins 50% Arroyo was pretty close to average in this category, while Hoskins has been about as good as anyone. This is one of Christian's better categories, and he's still being blown away by Hoskins.

Line drive rate: Arroyo 18% Hoskins 24% Arroyo is close to average here too. But once again Hoskins prevails.

Fly ball to ground ball rate: Arroyo 61%/21% Hoskins 48%/29% Fly ball hitters have them go out while ground ball hitters stay in the park. Arroyo hit 3 homers in 135 at bats, while Hoskins has 8 in 53 at bats. Hoskins has been other-worldly, while Arroyo was probably about the modest rate we would have expected.

Batting Average on Balls In Play: Arroyo .232 Hoskins .206 Both players appear to have been unlucky, but Hoskins is hitting .283, while Arroyo hit just .192.

In summary: Hoskins has made good enough contact not to worry with two strikes, while Arroyo has been quite vulnerable to the strikeout. One would expect the opposite.

Arroyo's weakness has been said to be -- and he has agreed -- that he makes contact TOO often, not having the patience to wait for balls he can drive. In the majors he has too often been overpowered. Hoskins has been a good two-strike hitter.

Arroyo went to two strikes in 73 of his 135 plate appearances. He hit .152 with 32 strikeouts. Hoskins has gone to two strikes in 40 of his 59 plate appearances and has gone .235 with 5 homers and 9 strikeouts.

Hoskins has gotten to two strikes even more often than Arroyo. In his case it appears to be because he has been selective. In Arroyo's case, it looks as though he has been overpowered.

Until I saw his 1/32 BB/K ratio, I didn't realize just HOW badly Arroyo hit for the Giants this season. Given how well he was hitting in AAA (with only a not very good BB/K ratio smudging a terrific season by the usual numbers), it is almost unbelievable he could have been so bad.

I just realized it, but we could say that when called up from AAA, both players hit to extremes. Hoskins hit to the scalding extreme, while unfortunately Arroyo hitting was very cold on the surface and below 0 Celsius when one looks deeper.

Both players will regress to the mean, and I suspect Hoskins will control the zone well enough to be a top hitter. Arroyo's lack of control will likely lead to his being a decent hitter.

Hoskins' comp might be Aaron Judge, while Christian's might be Joe Panik with fewer walks than Joe.

I've never seen anyone with 32 strikeouts and only one walk. I think he will recover, but Christian now appears to be only an average hitter when one considers what will likely be a low On Base Percentage.

In their minor league careers, Arroyo has hit only 24 homers, with only 95 walks compared to 242 strikeouts. Hoskins has hit 93 homers, with 211 walks and 353 strikeouts. This season in AAA Hoskins' BB/K ratio was a very impressive 64/75.

When factored with home runs, BB/K ratio can be a good predictor for how a player will hit in the majors. In extreme ways, both Arroyo and Hoskins have shown this to be true thus far.

Arroyo isn't this bad, and Hoskins isn't this good. But it's beginning to appear that Hoskins at his worst might be as good as Arroyo at his best.

At the moment, Christian is caught between the rock of being overpowered when he waits to be selective and the hard place of needing to be more selective so he can drive the ball well.

Not to the extreme that it occurred, but BB/K ratio when adjusted by home runs showed tough seas ahead for Christian and smooth sailing for Hoskins. Christian has been one of the worst disappointments among prospects coming to the majors this season, while Hoskins looks like the only player who could have given Cody Bellinger a runs for NL ROY had he been around all season.

BB/K when factored by home runs indicates Hoskins could be an even better hitter than Bellinger. They also indicate Arroyo might struggle for a while.

When we see that Arroyo was the Giants' top hitting prospect coming into the season and Hoskins was the Phillies', it could be a little discouraging. Hoskins hit the major leagues not just running but flying, while Christian didn't hit even half as high in the majors as he hit in AAA.

[donk33]

dk...they put a runner in early for Ramos and he has missed several games,now....sounds like an injury