If you’ve been reading the blog for a while now, you surely remember my reaction to the Phillies taking Tyler Mach in the 4th round back in June. You remember my dismay, that the team would take a low ceiling, four year senior in the 4th round when much better talent was still available. After the draft when Mach signed, he flew out of the gates, hitting over .400 in his first handful of games. My detractors were lining up to tell me how wrong I was, and saying that Mach should already be promoted to a full season league. Let’s revisit that post, first with my summary, and then with some of your thoughts.
My conclusion
The bottom line is, I’m happy that Mach is tearing the cover off the ball. At the same time, I still think he was a big reach in the 4th round, and I think there was still a good bit of signable talent on the board when the Phillies took him. I believe he was taken in the 4th round because he had no leverage and would be a cheap sign, and the Phillies needed that with having two 3rd round picks. Mach signed for $95,000, all of the guys infront of him that signed went in the $200,000 range, and the three guys behind him signed for $120,000, $140,000 and $164,000. I hope this pick works out, I hope he destroys the ball all through the minors, finds a defensive home, and can be a .280/.360/.480 guy in the majors and help us, but I’m not holding my breath, and I’d be shocked if he ever becomes a major league regular. That doesn’t mean I’m not pulling for him.
Some of your thoughts
Giving credit where credit is due is essential in this judgment-based time of now. What his past is, is interesting and something to use as a yardstick in measuring his performance; when performance far exceeds “valid expectations” it is not a good approach to limit him by past thoughts but rather take great heed at what he’s NOW doing.
If somebody were to tell me that he’s still at the NYPENN Lg now because, even if his hitting is great, his fielding is being assessed and worked on before moving him up, then I could go along with the sense that represents.
Otherwise, he NEEDS to be tested to see just what we’ve got. That is not going to happen unless he’s challenged at Lakewood or Clwtr. having so far destroyed the pitchers, whereas at higher levels it’d be easier to judge his skills and value to the big club i8n futuro. Keeping where he is now accomplishes nothing, IMO.
We should not be married to past evaluations; present results speak louder…
———–
This whole “old for the level” argument is a full red herring.. All of the college picks went to GCL or Williamsport. Is Taylor old for the level too? Rizzotti?? Give Mach is props, he was put where he shoulda been put and is crushing the ball. I do agree it doesnt mean very much, we will know more next year when he starts out at LKW or CLR, but for now I am impressed.
————–
The argument that his numbers this season should count for more than the scouting report is absolutely ridiculous. You do not grade recent draft picks based on statistics a very short season of work in low minor league ball. PERIOD. The scouting report is based on multiple seasons of work, as well as private workouts and interviews. His numbers are based on how many months of work in Williamsport? If you want to give him praise for his good work thus far, that’s one thing, but to say that is performance outweighs the scouting is absurd.
————
How so many here are willing & able to denigrate Mach’s hot start is amazing. I SUSPECT that many here are trying to “justify” their “lousy pick” commentary immediately following our draft. If he had been hitting .200 w no power and a lousy OBA there’d be plenty of “I told you so” people here.
Unfortunately for them the guy is hitting over .400 AGAINST MOSTLY COLLEGE PITCHERS who have been known to throw a curve or two and even a changeup. Thus it just may be that his reputation as a fb hitter only may have to be amended…and JUST PERHAPS one or two Phils’ scouts including a cross-checker may have figured that out just from watching him.
Though it could be that he is unsuitable for 3rd base because of fielding issues; yet that doesn’t bar the team from experiencing him in left field. If so, the sooner the better.
To those who suspicion him for his age: his age IS a factor; not so much because his obvious great success at Wlmsprt is a year AFTER most college players are drafted: at age 21.
So…just maybe moving him up now could advance him along w others at the same aqe of 22. But perhaps his bat is more needed at Wlmspt to buttress the offense.
I hope all the naysayers here are greatly surprised when he becomes part of the big club…perhaps as a power left fielder failing my 3rd base dreams for him. My bet is on him.
Utility player….!!! At best?
Reminder: a certain guy was going to be drafted in the 1st round for sure…but failed miserably at bat in his last pre-draft year. Thus his draft status fell greatly because scouts were saying he couldn’t respond to the pressure of the oncoming draft and his fielding was just adequate at most.
So..30 teams passed on the guy for the first 3-4 rounds in light of scouting report6s. The Phils thought they saw something that ALL of the scouts didn’t and chose him in the 4th round.
Thus, DESPITE the scouting reports the Phils ended up w Ryan Howard at 1st base. Not too bad for a guy who was dissed by all the scouts’ reports. Somehow the Phils’ people saw something other than the scouts did….It couldn’t possibly happen twice, could it?
Pretty good return on going against scouting reports on Howard…based upon YOUR OWN evaluators.
Tyler Mach…?? NAAH!!
—————
I’ll stop there. The responses were 50/50 it seems, either agreeing or disagreeing with my general idea. Well, a full season is now in the books, so let’s take a look at his numbers.
June: 16 PA — .500/.563/1.071
July: 123 PA — .317/.423/.471 — 9.8% BB — 8.9% K
August: 111 PA — .245/.297/.373 — 6.3% BB — 13.5% K
So….what happened? What happened is, Mach’s BABIP normalized, and when it did he came back to Earth. His final month of the season was a struggle, with his walk rate dropping and his strikeout rate rising, both bad signs. Was he tired? That shouldn’t be an excuse for a college senior, especially playing against much younger/inexperienced competition. Is Mach done for as a prospect? No, but while I certainly didn’t think much about his future, I think even less of it now.
I do think that this does help illustrate a very important point though. Every once in a while, you find a guy who drops in the draft for whatever reason, and that guy turns out to be the steal of the draft. Ryan Howard was a guy like that, ditto Mark Beuhrle and others. But guys like that are the very very large exception, they aren’t the rule. Mach doesn’t have a dominant tool like Howard did. He was a good hitter, not a great hitter, whereas Howard always had the elite power tool, and not much else. In a small sample from June to early July, Mach looked like the second coming of Rogers Hornsby. Then he leveled off, pitchers made adjustments, and his performance tailed off. Will he rebound next season? Maybe, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. He’s already 22 going on 23, and will need to move very quickly through the minors if he’s to retain prospect status. After a lackluster finish, it’s likely he’ll end up at Lakewood, where he’ll be 23, and his numbers again will have to be taken with a grain of salt. We’ll see what happens.
Phuture Phillies 
I’m not sure why Tyler Mach stirs up this much controversy. When looking back 5-10 years after any draft, it always seems like there was a better pick out there for nearly every slot. I would have preferred a pitcher, but so what? We got Mach and I can live with that.
Meanwhile, Mach had a decent season. Why single him out as a dubious pick? At 6’1, 195lb, he’s not a big man and he isn’t a roadrunner, but at this point, barring injury, it won’t be his physique that makes or breaks him. From now on Tyler’s MLB dream is all about his mental toughness and his ability to adjust, same as every draft pick. The jury is out on that one, but based on the numbers alone, there’s no reason for anything but optimism. Struggling is natural for any hitter, it can be the engine of growth for those who persevere. A cold second half doesn’t doom him to obscurity any more than a hot first half makes him a sure thing.
For comparison, Chase Utley is listed at 6’1, 184. At the age of 21 his numbers at Batavia in the NYPL were comparable to Mach’s. Actually, Chase had only 153 AB to Mach’s 247. If you look at Mach’s first 153 AB, he compares quite nicely to Chase. Now, I doubt very much that Mach will ever be the player that Chase is, but his season is no reason to feel worse about him than when he was drafted.
LikeLike
He stirs up controversy because he was overdrafted, and because people here thought I was crazy for saying that I had low expectations for him after his blazing hot start.
LikeLike
Another wasted pick …
College senior in the 4th LMAO
LikeLike
Thanks, XFACTOR. Sensible.
Some folks are OBSESSED w their argument here.
I love this line:
“…while I certainly didn’t think much about his future, I think even less of it now.”
His final numbers led the club in all offensive numbers; so THAT makes a person think LESS of his prospects…???
So…if he had hit .200, then perhaps we should have shot him as a dead horse.
Hunh?
LikeLike
I never feel good about picks like this. I don’t think Mach’s going to turn into anything useful for the big club.
LikeLike
phuturephillies: I don’t think you’re crazy for having low expectations since the odds of any fourth rounder even making the major leagues are fairly steep anyway (31%).
Using The Baseball Cube (http://www.thebaseballcube.com) I ran some numbers on the draft on the years from 1990-2000, figuring all players in this range would have either made MLB by now or retired. If there are any draftees from these years still playing in the minors, they probably won’t make MLB.
During that span 2,252 of 17,284 players drafted made the major leagues. That’s only 13% and that includes those only up long enough for a cup of coffee.
284 of 449 players drafted in Round 1 made MLB, or 63%. That’s 50% better than the total pool.
157 of 449 players drafted in RD 2 made it, or 47%. RD 2 draftees were 16% less likely to make MLB than those selected in RD 1.
107 of 314 players drafted in RD 3 made it, or 34%. RD 3 draftees were 12% less likely to make MLB than those selected in RD 2.
97 of 313 players drafted in RD 4 made it, or 31%. RD 4 draftees were only 3% less likely to make it than those selected in RD 3. In fact, in 5 of those 11 years a greater percentage of RD 3 draftees made it than RD 2. (1991, 1995, 1996, 2000)
96 of 313 players drafted in RD 5 made it, or 31%. RD 5 draftees were only 0.5% less likely to make MLB than those selected in RD 4. In 6 of those years a greater percentage of RD 5 draftees made it than RD 4. (1994 -1999)
Roughly one third of the total draftees from 1990-2000 who reached MLB were selected in rounds 1-5. Two-thirds who made it were selected from rounds 6 and lower, or were not drafted at all.
So how high can your expectations be whether Mach “deserved” to be a fourth rounder or not?
The numbers alone say the odds are against him, but it doesn’t seem to make much difference whether he was selected in round 4 or 5. Apparently things start to even out quickly after round 3 anyway. There may be a large drop-off somewhere after round 5, but I’ve spent too much time on this already.
I invite anyone to check the numbers, I’ve been distracted with my job while doing this…
LikeLike
Year Drafted MLB?
2000 1452 163 11.23%
1999 1474 173 11.74%
1998 1443 197 13.65%
1997 1607 201 12.51%
1996 1738 213 12.26%
1995 1664 212 12.74%
1994 1707 214 12.54%
1993 1718 210 12.22%
1992 1412 216 15.30%
1991 1599 216 13.51%
1990 1470 237 16.12%
17284 2252 13.03%
RD 1 MLB? Difference vs total
2000 40 21 52.50% 41.27%
1999 51 22 43.14% 31.40%
1998 43 30 69.77% 56.12%
1997 52 30 57.69% 45.18%
1996 35 24 68.57% 56.32%
1995 30 20 66.67% 53.93%
1994 34 27 79.41% 66.88%
1993 42 28 66.67% 54.44%
1992 38 23 60.53% 45.23%
1991 44 29 65.91% 52.40%
1990 40 30 75.00% 58.88%
449 284 63.25% 50.22%
RD 2 MLB? Difference vs. RD 1
2000 30 14 46.67% -5.83%
1999 33 14 42.42% -0.71%
1998 30 15 50.00% -19.77%
1997 32 18 56.25% -1.44%
1996 30 11 36.67% -31.90%
1995 29 15 51.72% -14.94%
1994 29 13 44.83% -34.58%
1993 30 18 60.00% -6.67%
1992 30 14 46.67% -13.86%
1991 29 11 37.93% -27.98%
1990 33 14 42.42% -32.58%
335 157 46.87% -16.39%
RD 3 MLB? Difference vs RD 2
2000 30 6 20.00% -26.67%
1999 30 11 36.67% -5.76%
1998 30 8 26.67% -23.33%
1997 30 9 30.00% -26.25%
1996 30 11 36.67% 0.00%
1995 28 7 25.00% -26.72%
1994 28 13 46.43% 1.60%
1993 28 8 28.57% -31.43%
1992 28 13 46.43% -0.24%
1991 26 10 38.46% 0.53%
1990 26 11 42.31% -0.12%
314 107 34.08% -12.79%
RD 4 MLB? Difference vs RD 3
2000 30 11 36.67% 16.67%
1999 30 9 30.00% -6.67%
1998 30 4 13.33% -13.33%
1997 30 9 30.00% 0.00%
1996 30 13 43.33% 6.67%
1995 28 10 35.71% 10.71%
1994 27 7 25.93% -20.50%
1993 28 6 21.43% -7.14%
1992 28 10 35.71% -10.71%
1991 26 11 42.31% 3.85%
1990 26 7 26.92% -15.38%
313 97 30.99% -3.09%
RD 5 MLB? Difference vs RD 4
2000 30 4 13.33% -23.33%
1999 30 10 33.33% 3.33%
1998 30 11 36.67% 23.33%
1997 30 10 33.33% 3.33%
1996 30 14 46.67% 3.33%
1995 28 11 39.29% 3.57%
1994 28 8 28.57% 2.65%
1993 28 4 14.29% -7.14%
1992 28 6 21.43% -14.29%
1991 26 8 30.77% -11.54%
1990 26 10 38.46% 11.54%
314 96 30.57% -0.42%
LikeLike
That came out UGLY…
The bottom lines are totals and should be shifted over to the right.
The headings are: Year, Draftees, Picks who made MLB, % of picks who made MLB, %difference vs. previous Round.
LikeLike
Of course I’m obsessed with my argument, it’s my blog 😉
He’s 22, and just put a modest .803 OPS in a short season league. I don’t think you’d find more than a small handful of scouts in all of baseball who would say they think Mach is likely to become a major league regular. His name came up before because people got really excited over his fast start.
College seniors shouldn’t be playing in short season leagues for more than a few weeks, and if they play entire seasons in a short season league, they should be a bit better than an .803 OPS. I understand the enthusiasm with a fast start, my original sentiment was “don’t get carried away, he’s not a quality prospect”, and now, 2 months later, his numbers indicate that he is indeed not a quality prospect, and after a disappointing debut, might not be much of a prospect at all, in the truest sense of the word.
He’ll be 23 next year, and unless he starts at AA and rakes, he’ll be older than he should be for his level. I have a feeling he isn’t starting at AA.
LikeLike
So…we hold it against him for being born two years too early…??
So…BECAUSE HE WAS DRAFTED IN 4TH ROUND he is less likely to reach the bigs than those chosen in the 1st, 2nd, and 32rd rounds.
THAT SHOULD BE IN HEADLINES SINCE IT IS SO SURPRISING!! HA!!
AND, it would thus apply to ALL 4th round draftees, no??
So the argument is that since he was a 4th rounder, we should ignore how he does on the field since 4th rounders make it only 14% (??) of the time. By that logic we should have NOT bothered to draft anybody after the 4th or 5th round because theior odds are even worse. Wow!!
Further, “college seniors should be playing in short-season ball for more than a few weeks.” mThere is no reason to believe that a 4th year college guy is to be expected to tear through short-season ball, instead of struggling more as a 3rd year college draftee. They BOTH come out of college pitchers who are no different from mone year to the other. If you have any stats to back that up, I’d like to see them!
The whole tenor of my postings on this subject have gone over your head because you have been determined to diss the Phils for this choice, whereas I choose to accept that choice as made and, since heIS of advanced age AND since he has done better offensively than any other draftee on the team, that is all the more reason to asdvance him ASAP BECAUSWE OF HIS AGE!!
You keep tellling us how poor a prospect he is, yet you refusae to see that that OPINION makes it all the more important to asdvance him quickly to test whether he can make it. THAT is the basis of my recommendation.
Please don’t take my opinions as a rejection of your opinion that he was a lousy draft choice; rather it is a logical and reasonable QUEST to put him to the test ASAP. Why anybody would object to that is beyond me.
REFUSING only makesa it more likely that his age would prevent any chance to make it; my way gives him more of that chance. Why?
LikeLike
Other picks had worst seasons than him. Some even drafted ahead of him. Sure they are younger and have higher ceilings but even so, we can’t forget about them if we’re going to talk about Mach’s season.
LikeLike
… and the Tyler Mach debate rages on!
Looking at his total numbers for the year, he had a decent offensive year, but I would guess probably doesn’t really project as a prospect for the Phils – they’re pretty stacked at 2b/SS.
From what I’ve gathered, James’ big problem isn’t with Mach, but what he represents – the Phils draft a guy that they know they can get cheap, rather than somehow with more upside that will be costly. Mach certainly did better than Michael Taylor, who is yet another toolsy outfielder who will in all likelihood flop – maybe Taylor is the one who we should be annoyed at.
– Jeff
LikeLike
I think your argument is flawed. You compare 31% to being a prospect. Making the bigs doesn’t make one a “prospect” as it is defined in this blog. Therefore, what percent of 4th rounders become true stars verse role players. My guess is that % goes way down. Will he be a star or a role player or in the 69%? I don’t know. And that is because baseball is a game of adjustments. Our friend pat the bat remionded us of that this season.
I love this blog, but if I could give one constructive criticism, I would say you make too strong statements too early. Being a productive mlb player isn’t about being a 5 tooler like some of this blogs favs that have gone backward this year. It is about being able to grow and make adjustments. Don’t get me wrong, I love 5 toolers too. But let’s let these kids grow and see who adjusts and who doesn’t.
LikeLike
Given the Phillies history, I do not believe that anyone could argue that this pick was not another “money saver” AND THAT is the real issue!
I wish Tyler the very best. I want to see all of the kids do well but reality states that a younger player with more time to grow, adjust & improve would have been a better baseball move for an organization that is making “REAL MONEY” and one that is willing to invest to help insure success.
I believe that the Phillies’ ownership wants to win (why wouldn’t they!) but mediocrity is acceptable as long as they are making money. For them, there may be a disimpassioned love affair with baseball and with winning (again, why not!) but making MORE money supersedes everything else.
As for Mach: Congratulations on a solid year & best of luck next year but his odds of being a meaningful pick for this organization are slim.
LikeLike
Actually, if you’ve been following from the beginning, I’ve written many times that I value performance over “raw tools”, but I don’t think that’s the issue here. Mach’s actual performance is not all that great when you consider his age relative to level. My general take on it is simple. I’ll take performance over tools until the gap is very narrow. For example, if two pitchers put up similar numbers in Low A, I’ll take the kid with the better fastball and better pure arm strength (tools guy) over the guy who has just mediocre stuff and is fooling hitters with deception. But if the gap is very large, and the kid with the dynamite arm can’t throw strikes, I’ll certainly take the Geoff Geary type who has below average stuff but manages to get outs.
LikeLike
I think the criticism of Mach being overdrafted is justified, though he should be given credit for a solid year. Everyone’s impressions are colored by early stats and small sample sizes. Mach’s .803 OPS is probably closer to his true ability than his early start. I stand by the assessment that he is more of a utility prospect than a solid 2B prospect. Besides his age and senior status, it is also questionable that he has the defensive tools to stay at 2B. If he moves to 3B or LF his offense is nothing special.
Bottom line is that he was a pretty safe and inexpensive pick in the 4th round. He might crack the bottom end of our top 30 prospects (25-30 range), but that is about it. Even if he jumps to Clearwater next year and continues to hit, he will still have his work cut out as a prospect. Next year he will be 2 years older than Brad Harman was at that level this year. Those 2 years are important. Harman has worked his way back into the top 8-15 prospect range.
The comparisons with Utley are also not that great. Utley was a year younger at SS-A and produced a higher OPS. Utley also has more tools (speed, defensive ability) than Mach. OPS is not everything.
Mach had a good year and may yet justify his draft round. Personally, I would have preferred another projectible pitcher with the high pick, especially given the known difficulty of signing Workman before the draft. I was also not a huge fan of the Spencer pick before that as I feel he was drafted too high for his level of performance in college.
LikeLike
“All I am saying is:”Give him a chance”
Those who claim no future for him: how do YOU KNOW???…and why do you object to putting him to the test??
If the 4th round pick was “bad,” then we should NOT give him a shot…because YOU think he was a lousy choice??
So…once YOU opine that he is a poor choice, the remedy is “Don’t give him a chance to prove himself” because…YOU believe him to be a lousy choice. So…;the sensible thing to do NOW is: forget him; don’t challenge him; don’t try to “put him to the test;”send him back…or out to pasture???
Now…when considering that viewpoint, don’t keep telling us he is terrible when you are unwilling to challenge him to prove yr point. So..it is up to the Phils and phans to just accept your opinion w/o “testing” it!!??
Whatever assurance anybody gives us that he is unworthy… so we shouldn’t even play him because to do that would be:
“WHAT?”
LOGIC MISSING: keep- telling us that there ARE weapons of mass destruction, accept that !!… w/o putting it to the test (inspections). Same unlogic.
LikeLike
oy ve, now you’re putting words into my mouth. No one is saying he shouldn’t get a chance….who said? I’m saying, I don’t like his chances, those are two very different things.
LikeLike
Ah…but you said he shouldn’t be given that chance in Lakewood…and that he should stay at Williamsport because–YOU say–he is not worthy.
Allowing him to move up (at age 22?) was my advice; you said NO…because you thought he was unworthy (of a chance).
Why is giving him a chance to prove YOU wrong not a good option. That way, of course, you couldn’r be proven wrong.
Heaven forbid that he moves up and maybe does prove you wrong. Now…we can’t have any of that!!
Your remedy: don’t give him a chance. Nonsense.
Wow!
PS Sure do love to talk here. Sometimes seeking rationality ain’t so easy. But XFACTOR’s got it!!
LikeLike
I am finding it difficult to even understand what Art D is belaboring phuturephillies about.
The initial complaint about picking Mach is that he did not seem good enough to be the 4th round pick. His college numbers weren’t great and he was competing as a senior against junior prospects. It seemed like an ultra-safe, cheap pick at the time. That was borne out by Mach’s signing for less than half of slot. You can peruse all of the early round signing bonuses, and it will jump out at you how much under slot this guy signed for. So, he and his advisor didn’t think his value was that of a 4th round pick, either. A lot of us thought he was overdrafted.
I am not all sure what you mean about complaining about him being born 2 years too soon. That is not the concern. The concern is starting his pro career two years too late.
Age matters. We don’t expect a 19 year old to play against the same yardstick as a 21 or 22 year old. A college senior has lost a year of pro development. To be worth a 4th round pick, he should stand out in performance, because he was old for his college league, just as he was old for Williamsport.
Phuturephillies is perfectly correct in being less impressed with Mach today than when he wrote his first review. Mach started out very strongly in the first half of the season, but his second half results were quite poor. That second half performance, not that he led the team in offensive categories, is I’m sure what Phuturephillies was referring to.
I also have no clue where your comment that phuturephillies or anyone on the forum is opposed to challenging Mach came from. I don’t see where he said that. Perhaps you can quote the comment you are referring to. Agreeing that he should have been challenged at Lakewood the second half of this season and should be challenged in the Florida State League next season, is not at all the same as expecting him to pass the challenge.
I see him as a fringe prospect at this point.
LikeLike
Stop telling me that Mach has no chance when you are unwilling to give him a shot at a higher level so as to see whether you are full of soup or not. That position is indefensible.
Continuing to say he is terrible WITHOUT BEING WILLING TO GIVE HIM THAT CHALLENGE MAYBE TO PROVE YOU WRONG displays your impossible position…for lack of sense.
Your advice to the Phils: let him langusih because YOU say he has no chance.
What nonsensible position will you make next??
Don’t keep tellling me he is terrible, and thus put up an intentional barrier to precvent him from proving otherwise…is a position that no baseball-wise person would take for a guy just drafted w no minor lg history worthy of dismissing him.
I never said he was the resurrection of Babe Ruth, nor anybody special beyond his numbers at Williamsport. By those numbers he SHOULD move up if for no other reason than his age. Otherwise, just put a blank at draftee #4 and pretend he doesn’t exist. Satisfied?
Your position boils down to: give him no chance because I think he is bad. Defend that if you can!
LikeLike
A-Town: you should read my commentary before you respond to such an unknown post. It will help to focus yr comments in response.
Apparently you wish to critique my post(s) without knowing what I said. Bad procedure. Much better to see what I posted, and THEN feel free to comment.
My simple opinion, expressed time and again (if you’d care to look): Bring the guy up to Lakewood or Clwtr and let’s see what we have by putting him to that challenge. I never said he was a budding star. I said just move him up because of his quick start AND because of his advanced age.
Response by the Blogger here(s) and others: he is a terrible choice, I don’t think much of him…BUT, NO I DON’T THINK HE SHOULD BE CHALLENGED AT A HIGHER LEVEL…JUST KEEP HIM WHERE HE IS!
WRONG!!
Perhaps yo\u can proceed to deal w that.;..and advise the Phils never to challenge any draftee because YOU think him unworthy. Great policy! Worthy of sandlot mgmt.
I believe in giving draftees a chance no matter whether he seems TO ME good or not BECAUSE ONLY BY SUBMITTING HIM TO SUCH CHALLENGES CAN WE DETERMINE HOW ACCURATE OUR ASSESSMENTS ARE!!
Nothing less is the way to seek out players w/in your system; not foreclosing them from possibilities by barriers of your own opinion.
.And, we’ll never know how well he’d have done in Lakewwod…since many players get a shot of energy from having their progress acknowledged by being moved up a level. Keeping him there only makes it more difficult for this “aged” player to reachm the top in time…if he can.
Finally, I accept the fact that he is our #4 draftee…a fact that some refuise to accept. Those “non-acceptees” wish to take that out on the player. Nonsense. He deserves the same consideration as any other draftee. Don’t remove his family jewels just because YOU don’t like the choice.
LikeLike
What are you saying? NOBODY has said not to give him a chance to prove himself at a higher level. Where do you see this? Be specific, instead of just repeating that nobody wants to give him a chance. Nobody has suggested that he be allowed to languish in rookie league. Where does this come from?
LikeLike
Art D –
The posters on this forum are not the ones who decide how fast Mach should move through the system. Quite a few want him moved rapidly to sink or swim, since he is old for the league he played in.
We have right to express our view on whether or not he was a worthy 4th round pick and whether or not we think he is a solid prospect. For me, the answers are no and no. If he proves me wrong, so much the better. The Phillies need all the prospects they can get.
I hate drafting a college senior in the 4th round. You keep ignoring the difference between a college junior and senior. Seniors are usually drafted later. That Mach signed for less than half of slot really tells you all you need to know about the Phillies’ strategy with this pick.
LikeLike
All you can do is repeat–in your opinion–that he is no good.
If you read the posts of the main-man here, he has spoken against moving him up, as I had wanted to see happen.
THAT is the essence of our disagreement.
Stop repeating that he is bad; rather tell us the truth: YOU say he is a lousy choice, SO—consequently–YOU SAY, forget any possibility that he MIGHT be ok. And, main-man says, take little note of any good that he may do!!
Thus, he and others here say: Since he is a lousy choice, they say, stop him–i.e., taking it out on HIM for what you believe was a bad choice.
Nope!
LikeLike
Art D–
Then you really need to go back and re-read this and the other Mach thread in their entirety, because the ‘main man’ never said Mach should not be promoted. Quite the contrary, he specifically said he felt any 22-yr old draftee should only spend a few weeks at most on a short season team before being moved up. The ‘main man’ was asked why the Phillies hadn’t moved Mach up and he speculated on some possible reasons. Not his reasons, the Phillies reasons.
I have never said Mach was ‘bad’, or ‘no good’, or that the team should ‘stop him’ so he can’t prove how good he is, or to forget any possibility that he might be ok, or that we should take his overdrafting out on him. In fact, I have never said he can’t succeed. I have said I thought he was a poor choice for the 4th round. Had he been an 8th round choice, I would have had no problem with the pick. 8th round picks, who sign for 8th round money, can succeed. The odds just aren’t very good.
I don’t know why you feel the need to put words in other people’s mouths and exagerate what they say.
Let’s summarize the facts we know:
Mach was a surprise 4th round pick. Because he was a college senior, because he had not been drafted in an early round in 2006, because his tools were limited, because he wasn’t ranked that highly going into the draft in publications we saw.
Mach signed for less than half of slot $
Mach started the year extremely well, but tailed off rapidly to quite poor numbers for the second half of season. So, the part of the year that you think he should have been ‘tested’ and allowed to demonstrate that he could succeed at an age-appropriate level, he was in fact being tested in the second half of rookie ball and wasn’t doing that well. His real ability is likely somewhere betweent he first half and second half performance.
We will see how he fares next season. Where the Phillies decide to place him and how well he does is not at all related to what is said on this forum.
And yes, I have read all of your posts on this thread and the previous thread, as well as everyone else’s. Your take on the threads simply seems very far off base.
LikeLike
Well…how far off base is it to say: give the guy a real chance by moving him up now…i.e., during nthe seas
on. Please stop telling me he would have done poorly at Lakewood! We don’t know, do we?? Do you?? Are you sure?? How do you prove your position?
Me: I said move him mup AND MAYBE WE’LL KNOW BETTER!
You seem to have a problem w letting the guy show his worth or not; contrarily I say give him the challenge and we could know better.
I completely fail to see the posiyion that mainMan has noted: when I said move him up, all I got back was how bad a choice he was…thus not worthy of movi
ng him up..????
If you try to tell me otherwise, i’ll have to check my eyesaight as weell as me3mory…because we’ve been having this argument for more than a n month.
If you go back to the original discussion, you’ll see/learn what I said is true.
I said move him up; he said, NO, he ain’t worthy.
THAT’S IT!!
LikeLike
My comment is, please fine some other hard working, exhausted, young man to share your thoughts on. Unless Im mistaken, none of you, with all your “thoughts” have any affiliation with the Phillies, which will make decisions regarding Tyler and his career.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone has a problem with Mach being promoted and showing his worth. At his age he needs to be promoted aggressively. I would venture that he is likely to get a double promotion to Clearwater next year. At Clearwater he would then need to continue to be a plus offensive player to be considered a prospect (think 800+ OPS). He almost needs to get to Reading mid-season to be a prospect (though he should not take at bats away from Brad Harman, the better overall prospect).
Age is one of the most important variables when considering someone’s prospect status. College players that get promoted slowly often put up good stats that do not translate as well into the upper levels of the system. Think of a Chris Roberson. He developed into a prospect at a relatively late age. He then stopped getting better when he got closer to the majors. This often happens because 25 and 26-year-olds stop getting dramatically better in the majority of cases.
For these reasons I have concerns about someone like Quintin Berry at Lakewood. He had a great season this past year that was even better than his OPS (781). His 395 OBP is especially important. But he is also 22 years old and will be 23 in November. That means he will be 23 at Clearwater next year if that is where he is promoted. A real prospect like Bourn got a double promotion to Reading and handled it. I am not sure Berry could handle that. And then suddenly Berry is 24/25 in AA/AAA in a couple years and one might begin to think he is not going to improve enough to be a major leaguer.
We are not knocking Mach here, just being realistic about his chances. Hopefully he puts up an 850 OPS next year and gets to Reading and stays in the middle infield. As a high pick he will get that chance. I am just a little skeptical that he can do that.
LikeLike
I’m not sure where this argument is going. Mach will start next year at either Lakewood or Clearwater. Which one probably depends on where the organization wants to put Cardenas as much as anything else. I can’t imagine a scenario in which he’d repeat short-season ball. So now we wait and see how he handles the promotion. Am I missing something?
LikeLike
Jeez. I’ve really stirred up quite a hornet’s nest, haven’t I?
LikeLike
Who knew that Tyler Mach also attends Widener University in his spare time.
LikeLike
Well, after reading your comments, I figured I’d better have a Plan B in case my baseball career doesn’t pan out.
8^)
LikeLike
p.s. I was the one posting under Tyler Mach’s name (and I’m an employee, not a student)
LikeLike
“posting under Tyler Mach’s name” ! ? ! How fitting…..the wannabe baseball experts are joined by the wannabe player. Bet yo’ Mamas are proud!
LikeLike
Wow I drop off the radar for a week or 2 and I come back to this goldmine. I sincerely hope that Tyler Mach becomes a productive big-league player. He had an outstanding college career and has proven to be a bit of a gamer.
The problem is that he would have been available for drafting 3 rounds later, where it would have been more appropriate. It simply appears that the Phils did not want to draft another above-slot player. This argument is more of a knock on the Phils’ ownership willingness to pay top dollar for talent int he draft than anything against Mach. He could become a very good major-leaguer but, conceptually, if he would’ve been available later, then it was overdrafting. I find it hard to believe that the Phils were so enamored with him that they needed to scoop him up prematurely just to prevent anybody else from taking him.
IMO, the Phils are sensative to having unsigned draft picks after Drew, Cooper and others and would rather draft an inferior talent that they know they can sign. They knew that drafting Workman was a risk so they took a sure thing in the 4th round where they could save money to put towards Workman. All of this being said, Mach had an above-average season in the NYPL and it is a bit unfair to call him way too old for the league because he was facing much the same competition as he had in college and it was a transition year from amateur to pro ball. Next year is the real test where he really needs to advance to Clearwater to be considered a real prospect. For this year, he showed enough that I do have some hopes for him but still, he could have hit .600 and the pick, at the time, still would have been overdrafting.
LikeLike
This debate was awesome.
LikeLike
So did he retire? I’m confused
LikeLike
Little snippett on him near the bottom.
http://www.sungazette.com/page/content.detail/id/511245.html
LikeLike