Box Score Recap 7-4-2012

Box Score Recap

Perci Garner with a nice outing.  Inconsistent this year, walking way too many guys.  But he’s put together some nice outings in between the very bad ones.  Anyone have velocity reports on him lately?

LV  REA  CLR  LKW  WIL  GCL  DSL  VSL

112 thoughts on “Box Score Recap 7-4-2012”

  2. We should keep in mind that, due to injury, Perci only had like 40 professional IP before being double jumped to A+. The K and BB rates are a concern, but he is someone that primarily needs repetition at this time. Hopefully he can show better peripherals in the second half.

    I don’t know about his current velocity, but PP has a profile on him at the top of the website.

    Like

  3. Still having difficulty rationalizing the Asche promotion, after jumping low-A to start the season, and following a struggle last year in the short-season NYPL. He would have been just fine with a full year at Clearwater and a promotion to Reading to begin 2013. Oh well

    Like

    1. From what I’ve read about his makeup, he appears to have the wherewithal to handle and learn from struggles. This is evidenced by his performance this year following Williamsport last season. He’ll put it together.

      Like

  4. Asche: Really struggling with the step up to AA. It would be nice to see him regroup and make a nice stabilizing run. I know that AA is likely the toughest jump so it will be interesting to see if he gets his feet under him or just fails.
    Ruf: Has trailed off a bit. Obviously, his torrid pace was unsustainable, but I would like to see him pick it back up. Still at .313 for season but has cooled considerably.
    The glowing talk of these two seems to have trailed off a bit too. : ) Everyone wants there to be a bona fide prospect so badly, but there are plenty of cautionary tails of great half seasons or even great seasons at the lower levels. You really need more than a full season of sustained performance into AA before you can really get excited. Even then, there are plenty of Michael Taylors and Dom Browns out there.
    Castro: On a great run. He is making a push to be added to 40 man which I believe he is not on now. If he finishes out the year like this you could see a team taking a chance on keeping him on their roster after a rule 5 selection. As I recall, there was some speculation that he might have been the player to be named later in the Pence deal if not injured at the time. I would rather have D. Santana and have lost Castro, but still an interesting note.
    I do like the performances of some of the sub A guys so far. Cozens has started out at an amazing pace. L Greene has showed some nice XBH power and has, as mentioned many times, welcomed a free base on balls. The willingness to take a walk shows that he is looking for his pitch and not chasing. That being said, you also have to have the power hitter swinging as he is your run producer. There does need to be a happy medium of aggression and patience. He seems to be striking that balance early. Walding, also hitting well out of the shoot as is the college draftee Serritella (2 2b’s yest.). I have to admit that with Quinn, this group has my interest early.

    Like

    1. Ruf is hitting .214 / .415 / .429 with a .167 BABIP over his last 10 games. Peripherals rock solid over that stretch. I’d say he’s been bit by the BABIP bug.

      Like

      1. Or maybe he’s just making weak contact . While BABIP is a useful stat when used to measure over time, people try to use it to justify every hot/cold streak. Probably the most over-utilized and misused stat around.

        Like

        1. But don’t you think it is relevant to state, given that a .167 BABIP will not sustain? The very fact that it will normalize over time is what makes pointing it out now relevant.

          Further to the point is that in this small sample his peripherals are still holding up (including .ISO, which would serve to rebut to a degree your notion about weak contact) making the BABIP seem even more flukish.

          Like

          1. It’s relevant, but it’s overused. Personally I stop at the “10 games” bit. Anything beyond that is overanalyzing.

            Like

          2. Of course his .167 BABIP will not sustain over a long period of time. My problem is that citing a low BABIP as a reason for a poor stretch of performance is that it insinuates that the struggles are simply bad luck. It’s just as possible that his timing is off and he’s not making consistant contact.

            As for the ISO, he can goes through a 4-25 stretch that includes a couple of hrs and a double and his ISO would be .280 while his BABIP would be terrible since the HR’s aren’t included in the BABIP calculation.

            Like

            1. “It’s just as possible that his timing is off and he’s not making consistant contact. ”

              I would say that is far down the list of possibilities. The biggest possibility is luck of some type. Pure randomness. That might by ball in play luck, but it might not be (which is why I don’t like to invoke BABIP myself for small samples). It might even be that is timing and swing are fine, but through pure random luck he hasn’t been making as much good “contact.”

              People underestimate the role of luck over the short run, in baseball in and in every aspect of life. A guy goes 0 for 4 with weak contact, and people want to blame it on “his timing being off” or “his swing is off,” but most of the time it’s just random luck. Heck, even stringing together a few strike outs – Ks become signficant with fewer PA than batting average, but even there a couple week’s data tells us almost nothing. Or the converse – a few weeks ago, Hewitt had more BBs in a week than he normally had over 2 months. Some people – and yeah, even I was fooled a little – thought hey, maybe his plate discipline is finally developing. But no, it was just a blip – luck, pure ransomness. And now he is back to walking about once a month (an exageration but not by much).

              Like

            2. “I would say that is far down the list of possibilities.”

              without seeing his actual at-bats, I would say that this is pure speculation…

              Like

            3. Obviously without seeing the actual at bats – and, more to the point, having a level of knowledge to know what to look for, which most fans lack – you’re speculatin. Which is why I DON’T tend to speculate about the causes of short term fluctuations in performance, batting average especially.

              But that goes both ways. You’re speculating too. The question is, what should our default assumption be when confronted by short term fluctuations in performance, especially batting average. the answer – and there is research to support this – is random luck.

              (The research consists of comparing patterns of actual fluctuations in performance with “theoretical” patterns of fluctuation in performance. If one assumes pure randomness (that is, randomness given a certain underlying “real” performance level), the patterns that result are remarkably similar to the patterns that exist in the real world. I tend to think that there is a little more “real” variation than the research suggests, but most slumps are a matter of pure randomness as opposed to fluctuations in ‘real” performance.)

              Like

            5. See, yet another snarky response. Of course as an analogy, the stock market is a lousy one on a number of different levels, as should be clear to the numerate portion of our audience. An obviously tiny portion of the readership around here, sadly.

              And yes, as should now be clear, I’ve decided that trying to be nice to morons doesn’t work. Trying to be reasonable and non-insulting gets me abuse anyway, might as well earn it.

              Like

        2. 3up,

          Sample size, sample size, sample size. Context here: Jon was responding to Doug. The fundamental error here is Doug’s, by placing any weight at all on short term fluctuations in batting average.

          I do agree that we don’t need to evoke BABIP to explain short term fluctuations in batting average. We don’t need to “explain” it at all. The larger issue, a mistake made constantly by fans in general, and by fans in comments on this site, even by the smarter fans, is that it is silly to put ANY weight on short term fluctuations in batting average. Any weight at all. Even a litle bit.

          I would have replied differently to Doug, not invoking BABIP specifically, but simply pointing out his continued solid perpherials and the meaninglessness of short term fluctuations in batting average, not even bring up BABIP. That doesn’t make Jon wrong though; his invocation of BABIP was unecessary. Possibly correct, but irrellevant even if wrong.

          That said, I think it’s fairly unlikely that all of the sudden Ruff went from making good contact to poor contact. Much more likley, and much more consistent with experience, he was a little lucky earlier, and not so lucky lately. Most likely, bad luck on balls in play explain his “slump.” I might add that Ruf is one guy with a consistantly high BABIP throughout his minor leagu career, so a short term drop in same is particularly likely to be random chance. But again, we don’t need to go there. Right or wrong, the short term “slump” by Ruf in batting average is meaningless, and should not effect our evaluation of him even a little.

          Like

          1. Don’t think that we really disagree about the sample size but I do have to quibble with the idea that Ruf couldn’t be going through a period where he’s not making solid contact. Every player goes through stretches where they just aren’t “squaring up” pitches with the result being fewer hits, lower BA, BABIP, etc.

            You’re not really trying to argue that a hitters’ level of performance doesn’t fluctuate during a 6-month season are you?

            Like

            1. I think that by far the biggest explanation for fluctuations in statistical performance over the course of a year are caused by random luck as opposed to fluctuations in “real” performance such as timing, not squaring up, etc. The latter does exist, but is swamped by randomness. A knowledgeable insider might be able to tell the difference; a casual fan probably not. Of course the longer the slump, the more likely something “real” is involved, A one or two week slump is most likely just random luck.

              Like

            2. I’d agree to an extent, but there is such a thing as being ‘locked in’. I assume many visitors to this site also played baseball at some point in their lives. When you’re seeing the ball clearly out of the pitcher’s hand, and your mechanics are not otherwise working against you, it could seem effortless to embark on a hot streak that has nothing to do with luck.

              BABIP is an interesting but overly abused statistic. It could tell us a great deal about the possibility for a trend reversal when looked at over the long-term, as in a player’s career, but is a useless statistic in gauging short term performance unless accompanied by line-drive rate, which will often show that a rise or fall in a player’s common statistics can just as often be a result of player performance.

              Like

            3. There are NO tools available to non-insiders useful in “gauging short term performance.” None, zero, zip. BABIP included, though if people insist on playing that foolish game, BABIP, flawed as it is in that context, is a somewhat useful corrective. One that I don’t use because the better corrective is the realization that short term variations mean nothing.

              As for being “locked in,” there is certainly some truth to that. Probably less than you, most fans, and even some players think. But even if I’m wrong about that, it’s impossible – not tough, impossible – for a fan to tell the difference between randomness and being “locked in,” or whatever you want to call it. And given that luck is AT LEAST 80% of the explanation of short term statistical variance (probably more, probably over 95%, I’m bending over backwards to be fair),the wise conclusion, for a sports fan, is to place no weight at all on short term variances.

              Like

            4. This is a ridiculous argument. Over the course of a statistically significant sample size, hitters that hit more line drives will get more hits, end of story. Will there be times when they are hitting line drives right at people? Yes and they will be unlucky. Will there be times when they are popping everything up weakly and a few will drop in? Yes. But anybody who watches a significant amount of baseball can see when a guy is on his game and squaring pitches up and seeing the ball well, and over periods of time they hit and hit well. And vice versa.

              Like

            5. Start with definng terms. Small sample size. “Small” varies depending upon the statistic we are considering. But for purposes of the current argument, I’m talking mainly about a week, maybe two or three weeks. Beyond that, randomness may hold less sway. Rollins – 2 months – I’m not going to really dispute you there.

              What you’re not getting – and, ironically, what some people who talk about BABIP don’t get – is that, over a small sample size, variances in LD% are mostly random. Mostly. Over the course of a season or (more signficantly) a career, there are indeed meaningful differences in LD%. Of course. Over small sample sizes, not so much.

              As for “anybody who watches a significant amount of baseball” … let’s start with the conceded fact that there is SOME truth to what you’rer saying about “seeing the ball well,” though one that the casual fan can’t reliably observe. That aside, it’s true that many fans who watch a lot of baseball THINK they see that pattern. Part of the well known human impulse to recoil from ransomness and find patterns where they don’t exisit. A player hits 3 line drives in 4 at bats, an observer – who really knows nothing about swing mechanics, few fans do, and can’t see through the player’s eyes to see how well he is seeing the ball – concludes, “well, he must be seeing the ball well.” But even the best player won’t always hit a line drive, and even the worst sometimes will. People see patterns, such a 3 line drives in 4 AB, and tell themselves, “well, that can’t be random.” But it can!!! Even moreso, a player with a 20% line drive rate can easily go 4 or 5 (or more!) at bats without a line drive, purely through luck. That’s basic stat 101.

              Life – and baseball – contain many, many examples of seeming patterns that are ransom noise.

              Of course those of us who “watch a signficant amount of baseball” AND have a good understanding of statistics (very few people do, alas) understand that.

              Rollins? His slump was long enough – two months – that I tend to agree with you that it was more than mere randomness. (And the pop-ups, yes, are evidence of that). Though at times I think even I tend to under estimate the role of chance in a situation like that.

              Like

            6. And recall we were talking about Ruff. Have ANY of the people weighing in so confidently about his recent play seen him play lately? At least I’m relying on the fact that, based purely on how statistics work, a player whose “real” ability is (say) a .300 hitter, will OFTEN hit .214 over a 10 game period. Often. Over ten games, the difference between .300 and .214 is roughly 3 hits. And 3 hits, more or less, over that span can easily – easily – be a matter of luck. I’d even run the numbers for you if I had time. Maybe I will. It’s just a matter of running the numbers using the binomial distribution.

              Like

            7. I’ve never seen Ruf play once and my argument wasn’t about him. To define “seeing the ball well”, if you watch a player for his entire career, you can tell when a hitter is on his game and when a hitter is not. Sometimes it’s a slump or a hot streak, other times it’s a given pitcher he’s facing. To define on his game, I mean things like his swing mechanics are precise, he’s laying off bad pitches and swinging at good ones, his timing is on so that even when he misses a pitch he’s fouling it right back, he’s not getting out too much on his front foot on offspeed pitches, he’s not getting late hacks at fastballs. If you watch a team and/or individual players enough, you can see these things. If I go to a minor league game to observe players I rarely or never see, I would have no clue how to tell if this is what they always do, good or bad, or they are streaking or slumping.

              Like

            8. Again, I’m not claiming those things are irrelevant or don’t exist. I’m making two somewhat interrelated points:

              (1) Most short term statistical variations in player performance (again, for the moment I’m talking about 1, 2, maybe 3 weeks) are NOT the result of those sorts of factors, but are the result of random chance.

              (2) Very, very few fans are really capable of intelligently observing those sorts of things – many think they can, but can’t. I’m not talking about obvious things, like being able to tell the difference between (say) a free swinging slugger and a patient singles hitter, but the subtle differences between a hitter in the “zone” and a hitter not in the “zone.”

              Now, as to point one I admit I’ve made assertions, rather than presented evidence. The problem is that the evidence in this case – in order to be convincing – would involve a semester’s worth of statistics, as well as presentation of some baseball specific studies. In short, if short term slumps were usually, or even often “real” as opposed to the result of random chance, we would see much, much more volitility in performance than we in fact see.

              Just to give you one example: assume a player whose “real” ability is a .300 hitter, who is not in any real “slump,” swing mechanics fine, seeing the ball fine, etc. In any given 10 game span (assuming 40 AB), the chances are more that 10% (actually 11%) that he will hit .200 or lower for that span purely by chance. That’s a simple (and indisputable) application of the binomial distribution. Over the course of a season, over 500 AB, it’s virtually certain that a player will have one or more streaks like that purely through chance.

              So point one is something I believe with a high level of confidence. Point 2 is more subjective, but given that the commenters on this site probably represent a more knowledgeable than average set of fans, and yet there are probably only 3 or 4 commenters who demonstrate a real ability to analyze swing mechanics, etc., well, you do the math.

              Like

          2. I’m sure a month ago when Jimmy Rollins was batting 225 and led the major leagues in infield pop outs (a stat, not an opinion) his BABIP was lower than the average, but it didn’t mean he was unlucky, it meant he was popping too many balls up in the infield.

            Like

            1. I’m afraid my last response got lost somewhat because of the way the site handles nested replies. I won’t repeat it here, though I will say this: I’ve stated elsewhere that I believe that Rollin’s 2 month long slump was “real.” Yet interestingly enough, even there, assuming his “real” ability in terms of batting average is his lifetime average, there is a 20% chance in any given period of 201 AB (his total through the end of May) that his BA would be as low as it was (.239) or lower purely through chance.

              Like

          1. OK, I didn’t know that but it makes sense since the ball technically is not put in play

            Like

    2. Larry Greene might be a Joey Votto type but i don’t consider Joey Votto a true first basemen even though Larry Greene is an outfielder but he’s a power bat and might move to first.

      Like

      1. I have high hopes for Larry Greene but lets not start comparing him to Joey Votto, Votto is the complete package on offense, IF Larry develops the right way he could hit 30+ homers a year but he is very unlikely to ever hit 300+ like Votto does.

        Like

        1. yeah i know its to early but i was just comparing the way they both take a lot of walks. but i wont consider Votto a true first base men because he doesn’t drive in as many runs as for example Howard in his early days of Pujols.

          Like

      2. Maybe in the general discussion thread you could explain exactly what the heck Joey Votto would have to do to become a “true first baseman.” Maybe you could even riff on what it says about the state of the game that the best first baseman in the National Leauge is not even a “true first baseman.”

        Like

        1. i wasn’t trying too i was just making a comparison but if you want to sure we can talk about this in the general discussion.

          Like

    4. Sorry for the typos. tails = tales and shoot = chute typing too fast to keep up with proper word usage. : )

      Like

    5. I think the big jump for most of our pitchers is from A+ to AA, but for our hitters, that is not a particularly big jump because Clearwater and the FSL is such a pitcher-friendly park and league and Reading and the Eastern League is a hitter-friendly park and league. Most of our recent prospects have done better at Reading than they have done at Clearwater (Rizzotti, Ruf, Overbeck, Hernandez, Castro). For hitters, in my view, the rubber hits the road, when the hitter is jumped from AA/Eastern League to AAA/International League.

      Which is why I want to see how Ruf does at AAA before we draw any firm conclusions. That being said, I think Ruf has better hitting mechanics, plate discipline and overall ability than Overbeck and Rizzotti. I saw him in person and liked what I saw. To me, the real question with Ruf is whether his power will translate to higher levels. If he could be a 20-25 homer guy in the majors, he could be very valuable. I think of him as a weaker version of Adam Laroche. Not a bad guy to have around in a pinch.

      Like

      1. The only problem with a comparison of Darin Ruf to Adam LaRoche is that Ruf is about to turn 26 with really good not great numbers in AA, while LaRoche was hitting .285 with 32 HR IN THE MAJORS at 26.

        Like

        1. Yeah, good point. Perhaps I should have said, a “notably weaker version of Adam Laroche.”

          Like

    6. Actually, re-reading Doug’s post, I was being a bit unfair to him. He does seem to “get it” (in terms of sample size). The fact remains that, while we don’t need to “explain” small sample size batting avergare fluctuations, if you want to do so, randomness of some type is more likely to be correct that stories we tell about “timing” being off or the like (though that does happen, of course, it rarely is the explanation for short term batting average fluctuations).

      Like

      1. So Larry…let me get this straight, after reading your five post…it comes down to luck.

        Like

        1. See. this is what I’m talking about. I try, really try to, to avoid being a jerk But two things set me off – the biggest by far are ignorant “fans” going off on players for perceived bad attitudes/laziness, etc. That’s not going on this time. But the other, and your post is an example of it, is when reasonable, non-insulting posts like my recent ones are greeted with snark and/or insults. Or people feel the need to make more general digs at statistically literate posters. Almost wearing ignorance like a badge of honor. Somehow it’s okay for some people but not for me.

          Like

          1. Chill Larry…just pulling your chain on a hot July afternoon. Grab a cold one. I look forward to your posts.

            Like

          2. ‘Wearing ignorance like a badge of honor.’ Funny line.
            You aren’t the only knowledgeable poster being attacked. Saw ‘3up’ jumped by multiple simpletons the other day.

            Like

    1. Who’s this Knigge guy? Wasn’t he played by Jeff Conaway in the movie “Grease”? No serious replies necessary.

      Like

  6. Several days ago Anonymous VOR inquired about what a midseason top 30 might look like. I don’t have the wherewithal to rank them 1-30, but I came up with a list of the top 30 in alphabetical order.

    Altherr
    Aumont
    Biddle
    Bonilla
    Castro
    Collier
    Colvin
    Cozens
    De Fratus
    Diekman
    Dugan
    Franco
    Garner
    Gillies
    Greene, L.
    Gueller
    Hernandez
    Hewitt
    James
    May
    Morgan
    Pettibone
    Pointer
    Quinn
    Rodriguez
    Tocci
    Valle
    Walding
    Watson
    Wright, A.

    If I were to rank them, Aumont and De Fratus and other top relievers falter while the recent top draftees from 2010-12 probably rank a little higher. The majority of the good talent resides in the low minors.

    Like

    1. Here is my top 20. There are several guys that I’m not including…anyone that has played at the show (brown, defratus, schwimmer, diekman, rosenberg, etc). I’m also not including anyone that has gotten their first taste of professinal experience recently (2012 draftees, WPT group of 2011 holdovers, etc).

      1 Biddle
      2 May
      3 Valle
      4 Hernandez
      5 Morgan
      6 Franco
      7 Colvin
      8 Pettibone
      9 Aumont
      10 Gillies
      11 Rodriguez
      12 Pointer
      13 Bonilla
      14 Asche
      15 Altherr
      16 Warner
      17 Lino
      18 Garner
      19 Cloyd
      20 Collier

      Like

    2. I’m a bit conflicted in my order since Sickels moved Asche/Morgan to 3/4, and Law claimed Watson and Gueller were 3/4. I don’t see either, but since Sickels likes proximity and Law likes upside, I understand.

      Mid-season Top 30:
      01. Biddle
      02. May
      03. Valle
      04. CHernandez
      05. Pettibone
      06. Walding
      07. RQuinn
      08. LGreenejr
      09. Franco
      10. AMorgan
      11. Asche
      12. Bonilla
      13. AWright
      14. SWatson
      15. Gueller
      16. Altherr
      17. Collier
      18. Rodriguez
      19. Aumont
      20. Tocci
      21. Gillies
      22. Castro
      23. Gabrial Lino
      24. JJames
      25. Colvin
      26. Cozens
      27. Pointer
      28. Cloyd
      29. JC Ramirez
      30. PGarner
      Sleeper: Andrew Pullin

      Like

      1. Solid list, thanks for posting. As you see from mine above, a fair amount of ours are similar. However, I do feel that the 25-27 trio of Colvin, Cozens, and Pointer are about 10-15 spots too low. But really, its all personal preference at some point. 🙂

        Like

        1. Your list is good too. I can see #s 3 thru 15 being interchangeable. Also, 16 thru 27 being pretty interchangeable, depending on preference.

          Like

      2. Mid-season Top 30:
        01. Biddle
        02. May
        03. Valle
        04. CHernandez
        05. Pettibone
        06. Walding
        07. RQuinn
        08. LGreenejr
        09. Franco
        10. AMorgan
        11. Asche
        12. Bonilla
        13. AWright
        14. SWatson
        15. Gueller
        16. Altherr
        17. Collier
        18. Rodriguez
        19. Aumont
        20. Tocci
        21. Gillies
        22. Castro
        23. Gabrial Lino
        24. JJames
        25. Colvin
        26. Cozens
        27. Pointer
        28. Cloyd
        29. P Garner
        30. JC Ramirez
        Sleeper: Gabriel Lino

        Like

    3. It is a fun exercise so I thought I would give it a try, I left out any player that has appeared in the majors and any 2012 draftees so I kept it to a top 20. One note is that I think Aumont and Bonilla are very good players and on talent and stuff should be top 10 but I can’t justify a relief prospect that high on the list. I am also unreasonably high on Jiwan James.

      Top 20
      1 Biddle
      2 May
      3 Valle
      4 Hernandez
      5 Morgan
      6 Pettibone
      7 James
      8 Asche
      9 Walding
      10 L Greene
      11 Colvin
      12 Franco
      13 Quinn
      14 Altherr
      15 Pointer
      16 Quinn
      17 Aumont
      18 Rodriguez
      19 Bonilla
      20 Cloyd
      Just missed: Castro, Gillies, Collier, Tocci, Wright

      Like

      1. I’m always surprised to see Jiwan James continue to place high on these lists. It’s hard for me to rank him higher than other CFs in the system, like Collier and Altherr. They have better numbers at this point, and are hitting better than Jiwan at the same age and levels.

        Like

        1. Agreed. Tools are nice, but at some point you actually have to have a season that isn’t below average.

          Like

        2. I’ve always been a James booster, but I’d concede Altherr at this point. Collier I’m not certain. James would probably rank 11-15 for me.

          Like

    2. I know the, this is a “Phillies’ Prospects Board” chant will start, but I can resist, Travis D’Arnaud was listed as 19 and A. Gose at 38. Ex-Phillie Pharm filled list at 19, 23, 38. The price of doing business, but I would love to have them in the system right now………

      Like

      2. also, guys like jackie bradley, whom the phillies bypassed in last year’s draft. even the yankees have three on the list.

        Like

    1. Cozens still 7th in this morning’s lineup. But Carlos Tocci is leading off after batting in the 9-hole his first couple of games

      Like

  9. Anyone know whats up with Watson and Gueller? They’ve been down in Clearwater for a few weeks and neither one of them has pitched yet

    Like

    1. They’re working out with the team but no dates are set for their 1st appearances. Looking forward to it though and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them out of the pen the first few games

      Like

  10. OF Zach Taylor promoted from GCL to WPT
    OF Diego Gonzalez promoted from WPT to LWD
    Both these likely due to injury to Kyrell Hudson (LWD)

    This should help alleviate some of the OF/DH logjam at GCL.

    Like

  11. Zach Green with a 3-run triple in the bottom of the first. Another young kid looking great in the early going. 3 BBs and 3 Ks in 24 PAs. Small sample, but a good one nonetheless

    Like

  12. Cozens also draws another walk. I thought it might have been intentional with 1st base open and runners on 2nd and 3rd, but the opposing pitcher is a lefty, so I’m sure they pitched to Cozens and he simply drew the walk. Nice (continued) patience from a young kid with two ducks sitting on the pond

    Like

    1. There have been three intentional walks in the entire Gulf Coast League this year. I can’t imagine why you’d issue one (except in a bottom ninth, tie game scenario). Worst case, your pitcher learns what not to throw next time.

      Like

  13. I know people have said Astudillo is not a prospect and has no power, but he doesn’t strikeout and all he does is hit.

    Like

    1. He’s very intriguing. On one hand, he does seem to hit very well and have great idea of the strike zone. On other other hand, after a good 2nd season in the VSL, they kept him there again for his age-19 season — that is a bit of a concern. A lot will depend on his defense. He has played 3b prior, but seems to be primarily C (with a small bit of dh/1b). If he can remain at C, then his bat plays. He doesn’t seem to show nearly enough power for 1b/of.

      Like

      1. That is my feeling too. I thought he had no chance going into this season because of the lack of promotion last season. He has exceeded expectations but the cautions are he is probably not that great defensively, is a little old, and has a hitting style that more experienced pitchers will take advantage of.

        Like

    2. He’s very difficult to evaluate. Not only the question of whether he hits enough for whatever position, but simply the fact that he’s learning catching from scratch. I don’t evaluate VSL numbers and he’s only had a small sample of GCL, so I’m not comfortable rating him based solely on the statistics.

      Like

  14. Nice comeback win for the GCL Phillies vs the Yanks today (7/5/12)!

    Down 2 in the bottom of the 9th, 3rd round pick Zach Green hit a solo HR to cut the lead to 1. Then, surprisingly, two guys that had done about as little as you possibly can do for how much they’ve played — Herlis Rodriguez and Jairo Cardoza — help them take the lead. Cardoza hit a two-run double that plated the tying and winning run.

    Notables:

    Tocci 0-3
    Pullin 0-3, run, hpb (like 5th time already)
    Cozens 1-3, bb, run, k
    Z Green 2-4, r, hr, 3b, 4rbi

    Rojas 3.1 ip, 1h, 0bb, 7k

    Like

    1. Did you happen to see the 9th? The play-by-play said Rodriguez scored from first on a deflected double. Dude must have some speed

      Like

      1. Just play-by-play. I’m not sure how much faith I put into those descriptions, as often you’ll see a lot of balls ‘deflected’. The runners could have also been moving on the pitch, though I believe he is supposed to have plus speed.

        Like

  15. Zach Green is another guy to add to the ‘must follow’ list. He’s a 3rd round pick this year out of HS and he’s off to a hot start.

    Like

    1. Agreed nik. I made mention of him earlier. And that was before his 9th inning homer today. Kid is playing well so far

      Like

  16. Shocked that not one person has put Brandon Knigge on their Top 30 list. He belongs there now and the Phils have certainly taken notice of him. And its not like he was a lower round draft pick either, I believe he was selected in the top 10 rounds. Anyways, my guess is that he has jumped so rapidly that it might have just been that he was overlooked.

    Like

    1. Well, he is a relief pitcher in A+. RP generally aren’t as valuable as pretty much any other prospect, unless they are 1) close to the bigs, and 2) profile as a shutdown/closer type.

      Knigge is doing fantastic, but most of the ‘hype’ he gets on this board is from those that look at his ERA and nothing else. He has been very good, but you don’t sport an ERA that low without being very lucky well. He is just about barely striking out a batter per inning, and you’d hope for a touch more (11+ per 9) from your elite relievers. He’s certainly someone to monitor, but I can think of 6-7 relievers that I’d put ahead of him.

      Like

    2. I don’t think Knigge would make my top 40, but I could see others putting him in their top 30. It’s just preference. An older college pitcher, relieving in A ball, should suceed (IMO). Relievers don’t impress me unless they have a devastating pitch. I haven’t heard of that with him.

      Like

    3. To me, ERA is an imperfect measure of a pitcher. I think in relievers in particular it tends to lead to flukish results. A lot of factors come into play. Hits falling in, defense behind him, small samples of innings and the way earned runs are credited. In addition, most relief prospects tend to be older, there are about 3-4 per minor league team so for the whole organization there are 10-12 pitchers you can reasonably consider at least fringe prospects. Ramirez, Knigge, Rosenberg, Friend, Cisco, Giles, Morgado, Duke.

      Any of those guys can step forward and become a good MLB relief pitcher. More than any other group, pitchers come out of nowhere every single year. But you have to have a damn good eye to spot them beforehand. And a lot of guys have potential, but you can only pick a few. For me, none simply distinguish themselves to such an extent to merit a ranking. Relievers I typically rank only after you’re about certain they’re going to at least reach the majors.

      Like

  17. Opps, meant Tyler Knigge and he was selected in the 12th round of the 2010 draft. Still, not exactly a long shot selection in that round, Phils must have thought he had potential.

    Like

    1. Pretty much what I wrote with Knigge a few posts above, but he is a little closer to the show.

      Like

    1. There is so many outfielders on the GCL team that it’s hard for all of them to get playing time

      Like

      1. I’ve counted at least seven Outfielders that are receiving playing time in GCL, even with Cozens playing everyday.

        Like

        1. 8 outfielders total. Looks like Knight (assuming he’s not hurt) is losing playing time to Jiandido Tromp, a center fielder from Australia. I don’t know much about Tromp but he looks overmatched at the plate thus far, judging by his BB/SO ratio.

          Like

          1. Tromp is from Aruba. He reportedly received a decent sized bonus of about 125K. So they probably want to give him an extended opportunity.

            Like

          2. Tromp is from Aruba, not Austrailia. He was a big $ signing, so expect to see him get every opportunity to get ABs.

            Like

  22. I kind of beat the small sample size issue to death up thread, as is par for the course I guess. I keep plugging away at it because I think it’s the one issue among commenters on this site where (1) many people continue to draw dubious conclusions from small samples, yet (2) the issue is really clear cut, i.e., not in the “reasonable minds may differ” category.

    Anyway, the above back and forth over randomness versus players who are having slumps or hot streaks driven by “real” issues with their batting stroke or timing or “seeing the ball,” or whatever, obscures the big picture. Even if you believe (wrongly IMO) that most short term fluctuations are driven by “real” rather than random factors, you STILL shouldn’t put too much weight on small samples. Because players tend to “work through” problems with their swing, etc., or, on the other hand, don’t stay “in the zone” indefinitely.

    Rollins, discussed up thread, is a case in point. I agree that his April/May slump was probably not just “bad luck.” But even so, he sits at the halfway point more or less where he should have been expected to be, just a tad below his career norms (adjusted for context – but not that far below his career norms even unadjusted). Showing yet again why we don’t draw too many long term conclusions from 2 months of data (let alone a week or two).

    Of course the Rollins stuff was even weirder because of irrational Rollins hate, and the libelous statements about his attitude and work ethic (to be fair, anon doesn’t do that upthread).

    Like

Comments are closed.