KG is reviewing each division’s 2008 draft over at BP, and he did the NL East on Saturday. Here’s what he had to say
Draft Philosophy: Tools, tools, and more tools! Must have more tools! Enough to fill the shed!
First Pick: Anthony Hewitt, SS, Salisbury School (CT) (24th overall>
How High He Could Have Gone: There were some teams considering him towards the middle of the first round, but he was a very polarizing player. Some think he slotted well as a mid-first-round talent, others wouldn’t have touched him until the first 100 picks were already off the board.
Path To The Big Leagues: It won’t be quick. The best athlete in the draft is also one of the furthest away from the majors. He might not even be in Double-A by 2011, so be patient, Phils fans.Rest of the First Day:
1. Zach Collier, OF, Chino Hills (CA): Expected to go about ten picks earlier; a touch less athletic than Hewitt, but a touch more polished.
2. Anthony Gose, OF, Bellflower HS (CA): A better pitching prospect, but he doesn’t want to pitch. As an outfielder, he’s loaded with tools, especially speed.
2. Jason Knapp, RHP, North Hunterdon HS (NJ): The pitching version of Hewitt. He’s huge and he throws very hard, but that’s about it.
3. Vance Worley, RHP, Long Beach State: A big-bodied pitcher with good velocity, but he has problems with his secondary stuff and control.
4. Trevor May, RHP, Kelso HS (WA): A projectable arm who needs refinement, but the ceiling is there.
5. Jeremy Hamilton, 1B, Wright State: The rare non-toolsy pick for the Phils–-he put up big numbers in college but doesn’t thrill scouts.
6. Colby Shreve, RHP, Southern Nevada CC (NV): Gifted with a plus sinker/slider combination, but he just had a Tommy John surgery.Best Second-Day Selections:
7. Johnny Coy, 3B, Benton HS (MO): He May be more raw than Hewitt, but he’s 6’7″ and athletic, so there’s plenty to dream on.
8. Julio Rodriguez, RHP, Puerto Rico Baseball Academy (PR): Tall, projectable arm fits in well with team’s philosophy.
10. Jean Carlos Rodriguez, C, Washington HS (NY): Like most Philly picks, he’s raw, but he’s got a good arm and a ton of strength.
Phuture Phillies 
With maybe one exception, every one of his reviews had the word “but” in it. Not an overly positive write up.
Also, I’ve been wondering, what does it mean when a pitcher is “projectable?”
– Jeff
LikeLike
It sounds like he is reserving his judgement on our draft just like we all are. The draft could turn out to be huge or it could fizzle out. Did Goldstein write any more about his opinions or did he just leave it player to player and move on.
LikeLike
Projection is a scouting buzz word. Basically, the younger you are, the more “projectable” you are, because your body still has room to grow. If a kid is 6’3 as a 17 year old, you can posit that he might still have room to grow. For pitchers, if you are 6’3 and throwing 90 as a 17 year old, and it looks like you might grow a few inches yet, scouts can “project” more velocity as he fills out.
College kids are less projectable because they are 3-4 years older, and they are probably close to done growing.
LikeLike
he missed pettibone. prob just insert may’s description and there you have it.
LikeLike
Its a lot easier to criticize a pick who won’t produce for 4-6 years than one who will in 2-3.
LikeLike
My problem with “projectibility” argument is that I feel its partially a remnant of the steroid era. The “more room to grow” could factor in the extra muscle/velocity fans grew accustomed to during 1996-2004. A 6’7″ kid could fill out and start throwing 100mph naturally, but he’s almost guarenteed to do so on steroids or HGH. I’m just saying: “projectibility” 1996-2004 isn’t the same thing as “projectibility” in 2008.
I predict we’ll see smaller gains in velocity, more in line with 1980s expectations. Instead of the big “tall and fall” power arms, I think we’ll see more skinny Tim Licecum types, who get velocity through a whipping motion.
LikeLike
Um, yeah I disagree with all of that.
LikeLike
If you have no draft picks, and you go tools, tools. tools,
you are putting all your eggs in one basket.
Golson is a good example. If Taguchi has decided to get old
and his option is not picked up for next year, Golson will fit the Michael Bourne Role – Pinch Running, Blazing Speed and Steal Potential, Gold Glove Defense – Does anyone remember the Spring Training Catch he made this year where he jumped while going back – his body fully extended – parallel to the ground – to make the catch? Golson certainly will be 5th Outfielder capable in 2009 or 10. But if he is the only Egg you are hatching then you are disappointed.
Why I am loving this draft is that it matched what was available (why waste a Number 1 Pick on a 3rd Starter?).
So more eggs, more baskets. More chances to win. Even if
not one in the draft pick pans out, your loss is a Lohse, a Kendrick, and Ryan Freel at best.
LikeLike
thats fine, its just a trend i’m starting to notice…
The only part I’d restate is the “almost guarenteed to do so on steroids/HGH”, which should read more like “more likely to do so”. If use of steroids/HGH was common during that era, it would’ve had an enormous impact on a young pitcher’s ability to “fill out a big frame” and avoid injury. I also think the MLB’s more rigorous testing policy corresponds with the diminished power and velocity we’ve seen in 2008.
I also think those extra hormones contributed to unnatural consistency, which led to increased reliance on statistical analysis, (ie “moneyball”>”tools”) because individual perfomance became easier to maintain, and therefore, predict. Its easier to go “station to station” when the trains all run on time.
Here’s a comparative stat I think we’ll see in future baseball history books: avg player weight. Baseball players of the steroid era were clearly bigger than those of any other era. Weren’t they? I have no evidence to back up that claim, but it seems it has to be the case.
I think baseball is purer in 2008 than its been for a while, which is a very good thing. Its been a gradual trend, but I think the sport has firmly passed into a new era. Yet again, baseball is a young man’s game, with shorter games, more mistakes and less home runs.
The cynic would say this fits perfectly with the latest Madison Ave marketing craze: “Authenticity”….but thats getting away from “projectability”.
LikeLike
How do the Phils see Vance Worley?
I think he was announced as a starting pitcher, but Keith Law’s scouting report has him squarely in the ‘pen.
From ESPN:
Ultimate Role: Setup man/closer
…What some team should do is take Worley and stick him back in the bullpen, where he had success for the Chatham A’s on Cape Cod in 2006. His velocity ticked upwards to where he was sitting 92-94, his breaking ball was sharper and he missed more bats while throwing a ton of strikes. Everything about him screams reliever; he’s had elbow trouble (it ended his ’07 spring and he didn’t pitch last summer). There’s some effort in his delivery; he’s got some recoil after he releases the ball, and his velocity ticks up to plus in the bullpen.
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlbdraft/player?id=18777&draftyear=2008
LikeLike
Little off topic, but agreeing with Phuture Phils that Baxter is way off…..I dont think steroids have any effect on how fast a player throws, at most a very minimal effect. Where steroids help pitchers is recovering from injuries and being more durable to pitch longer and more effectively.
LikeLike
Projectability and steroids have no real connection. I don’t think steroids impact how tall you are going to be. Maybe they do and thats news to me. Its really pretty simple. Scouts look at where a kid is now, what kind of body he currently has, and what he’s likely to do over the next 3-4 years. If you are 17 and already 6’5, but you’re really thin and wiry, scouts will see that you probably have room to grow a few more inches, and as you get older, your frame is likely to fill out. If you can already throw 90-91 mph, they can easily project you to throw harder when you’ve added 30 lbs onto a 6’7 frame. Likewise, if you can hit a ball 400 feet in batting practice and you have a very wiry frame, the more muscle you add, the more strength you’ll have. Its not about steroids, its about growing into your body, which is pretty normal for almost every human being, especially athletes who are in top physical condition. It may be hard to believe, but not every athlete does steroids or HGH.
The other side of projectability has to do with baseball skills. Kids who are very athletic and can repeat their deliveries are projectable in the sense that scouts are convinced it will lead to good control and command as their deliveries are cleaned up, since they will presumably be able to repeat their improved delivery with great frequency. Similarly, if a pitcher has the ability to throw at least an average changeup in high school, scouts can project him to throw an above average changeup down the road with proper instruction.
Thats what projection is. It has nothing to do with steroids.
LikeLike
A. steroids impacts the ability to (and magnitude of) physical growth.
B. steroids were prevalent in the past in the minors/mlb.
Thus C = physical growth of players will not be as consistent as in the past.
that’s baxter’s point.
LikeLike
no, this is baxters point
“My problem with “projectibility” argument is that I feel its partially a remnant of the steroid era.”
and its wrong, scouts were projecting size height and weight of HS kids before steroids were huge…
and besides there is a whole side of projectability that has nothing to do with physical attributes, like a certain pitch being projectable to be major league caliber, or a swing being projectable for average or power….. or speed being projectable into base stealing ability….
this draft and its projectability have literally nothing to do with steroids, so please, lets stop discussing roids in this thread and stay on topic, ty
LikeLike
FWIW, i’m with phuturephillies on the “projection” discussion. Based on nothing but anecdotal evidence, I think many of the players who were on steroids did so when they were already in the majors and wanted to boost their stats or in the upper minors who wanted to take the next step to get noticed. Of course, there were college kids/HS kids here and there on them, as well.
LikeLike
id hate to continue to post on this, but a lot of the roids and HGH use in baseball can be attributed to healing injuries… especially HGH….. unless your looking for big time power, bulk is not the best thing for a baseball player… more bulk = less speed = less quickness
you can be as jacked as you want, but if you dont have a power stroke, all the muscles in the world arent gonna do you a thing…. a lot of attention was given to big time roiders who hit HRs and I think it spun outta control, roids were big, but HGH was and is far bigger IMO…
still no HGH test, which is scary, so your “purer than ever game” i dont buy it, you just dont see the muscle bound freaks anymore, cause the gigs up….
its a last resort, a desperate plee to get back into the game by most these guys, the big time names blew it all out of proportion and made it seem like all roid do is make you hit HRs, not true
LikeLike
Getting way off topic, but as a former college football player who has seen many people take steroids, the belief that they prevent injuries or cause people to heal quicker is a myth. What they do is allow your muscles to recoup faster while exercising, allowing you to work our harder and longer, thus building more muscle. The fact is most people put on more muscle than their frame is meant to carry, thus causing more injuries, not less.
I’ve obviously never did a study or anything but that’s been my observation, and back when I played, roughly half our team was juicing. I can’t speak to HGH because it didn’t become prevelent until several year later.
I believe the evidence shows that steroids were a tremendous help to power hitters but had very little impact on pitching. I get Baxters point, but I think he’s overstating. Players will rarely grow like Bonds did, but almost all 25/26 year olds will be bigger & stronger than they were at 18 or 19.
LikeLike
I get all that: these projections go back well beyond steroids, the hormones stimulate regeneration of muscle fibers, etc. I’m just saying the steroids influenced player output/development during that era, thereby altering future projections. How could it not? Ryan Howard’s 58 home runs meant less after Bonds hit 71. A young pitcher naturally throwing 95 becomes less impressive after seeing juiced up pitchers throw 100.
This hypothetical 6’7″ 200lb pitcher who throws 90-91, could project to throw 95-95 after gaining 30 pounds. Now what if he gains 50 pounds of muscle, instead of 30, and starts throwing 98-99. That extra muscle, and therefore, extra velocity, could’ve been achieved through unnatual means. Wouldn’t the introduction of that extra element alter the way scouts looks at a player’s development? I’m just saying certain athletic achievements of that era exceeded reasonable expectations. Scouts cannot evaluate talent based on discontinued methods of physical development. Of course kids grow, but for a while, they were growing too much, and you can’t expect kids in the future to grow at that rate.
LikeLike
Baxter, even if we were to accept your premises about the steroid era, your conclusion wouldn’t fly. Let’s say that in the steroid era, a projectable player was able to grow by his natural projectability + the steroid effect. But during that same era, even a non-projectable player would have been able to grow through the steroid effect. The difference between a projectable player and a non-projectable player would have been the same as it would have been without steroids.
LikeLike
the point that you guys keep missing is that this is all about probabilities. could a kid at 30 pounds of muscle to fill out a frame without juice? of course. is the probability of reaching that projectable size higher when roids/hgh is prevalent? of course. thus baxter’s point holds.
as the percentage of players who reach their projectable size decreases, it becomes a much less valuable part of a prospect’s potential value.
and the person who said that roids was contained to the big leagues or to injured players has not been paying attention. this stuff is all over high schools, colleges and the minors.
LikeLike
You guys are crazy! Projections have nothing to do with steriods. Its age and natural ability. Get off of the steriods.
LikeLike