The folks over at Project Prospect rolled out their Top 100 in the minors list today, and the Phillies lone representative was Carlos Carrasco, coming in at #67. Carrasco is one of the younger members of the list, and realistically is probably the only Phillie who really deserves to be there at this point. Most of the guys on the list were taken pre 2006, so that would preclude Cardenas and Drabek, but with strong seasons, all three have a shot to make the list in 2007. Project Prospect is a cool site for general prospect info, including position breakdowns….check’em out.

Baseball America has resumed their top 10 lists with the Atlanta Braves today, and the Phillies are scheduled for January 10th. If you’re reading this site, you are clearly interested in the minor leagues and prospects, so I’m sure you already know plenty about Baseball America. For those who don’t, basically, they rely on the reports of scouting directors, individual area scouts, crosscheckers and other talent evaluators. They gather all of their info, look at the numbers, then rank their prospects based on all of that information. For people like you and me, it’s obviously one of the best resources available, because most people don’t have the time to go out and see hundreds of minor league games every year. However, when looking at players at the minor league level (and even the major league level), there are two sharply divided schools of thought: Tools (old school) vs Numbers (new school), and I’m not here to tell you which is right (both are right) and which is wrong (both are wrong), I’m just going to try to explain where I’m coming from with my analysis (ramblings) and thoughts.

When you get into this game, and by game I mean following minor leaguers, you have to understand what you’re looking at, and how others look at things. “Moneyball”, the book by Michael Lewis, really is about the economics involved with baseball, especially front office decisions, but it also introduced some casual fans to the work of Bill James, and along the same lines, it introduced (or at least rekindled) the debate of “tools” vs “production on the field”, which is especially important to minor league players.

Generally (and more closely related to position players), there are 5 conventional tools:

• Hitting for average
• Hitting for power
• Running
• Arm Strength
• Fielding

If a player is excellent in all of those areas, he’s labeled a “5 tool player” by talent evaluators. If he’s good at 4 areas, he’s a 4 tool player, etc etc. Now, of those tools, some are more “skill oriented” and some are more physical trait oriented. For example, if you’re 5’10 and weigh 215 pounds, with a thick muscular build, chances are you aren’t going to be considered a speed demon. If you don’t have 30 stolen base potential, you lose one of your “tools” when you’re evaluated by scouts. If you don’t have a cannon arm, you’re not looked at as a right field candidate, and you lose another tool from your arsenal. Scouts use a scale to rate every tool, with a 20 being terrible (think Sal Fasano rounding second base), and 80 (think Ryan Howard’s power) being the best.

Ok, so what does that mean? When a scout watches a player, he immediately looks at those five areas. He makes notes about a player’s build and his “tools”, and this is important in the next area, projection. Projection is another scout buzz word, and it basically means “what can he become?”, and believe it or not, this is almost as important as what a player can actually do at the present time. This is much much more important when looking at high school players, because they are generally years, (2 or 3 at least, normally 4-6) away from making it to the majors when they are finishing high school. If you have two pitchers with identical numbers in high school, what generally separates them is their projection. For example, a kid who is 6’4, 180 pounds is much more projectable than a kid who is maybe 5’9, 150 pounds. On the pitching mound, they could have identical pitches, and put up identical statistics, but the scouts will favor the taller kid 95/100 times because of his projection. They look at the taller, skinnier kid and picture him growing 3 more inches and adding 50 pounds of muscle to his frame, and that means more potential velocity, a better downward plane on his pitches, and better durability.

Scouts rate players based on what they could become, also taking into account what they’ve done in high school, but again, more on what they can become. While you can definitely see the merit of this approach, it also helps explain why guys like James Happ, who I’ve discussed in my previous article, flies under the radar. He has good size, but he hasn’t added much velocity, and probably won’t in the future. Because he has lesser “stuff”, you can’t project him out to be a top of the rotation starter, despite his incredible consistency and otherwise solid numbers as a pro.

Back to my opening line regarding Baseball America’s Phillies list. Baseball America is driven by scouting reports of players. Scouts take notice of a guy’s numbers, but the old school approach is still very prevalent in the scouting world. To use a Phillies example, just look at Greg Golson. There’s a decent chance Golson will be ranked in the Phillies Top 10 list at Baseball America, and there’s an even better chance he ends up in the Top 15. If you look at his numbers, they really aren’t good. He was taken in the first round of the 2004 draft ahead of Phillip Hughes, now one of the top pitching prospects in baseball, because he was regarded as the best athlete in the draft. The general view of him was “incredible athlete, but raw baseball skills”, and boy were they right. Golson is fast, he has good raw power, he has a strong arm, but he really isn’t all that good at baseball. Lots of people can run really fast, but you don’t see many Olympic sprinters in the NFL, because it still requires skill and technical ability.

The old cliche “the hardest thing to do is hit a baseball” really does have some merit. Can you teach someone to have good plate discipline? Maybe. But it seems like the guys who “make it” at the big league level always had the skills, even if they didn’t have the “tools” that scouts obsess over. A scout would probably argue, on the other hand, that you can’t “teach a guy to run a 3.9 second 40 yard dash, but you can teach him to hit a curveball”….and well, they are probably right. Remember when I said that both sides were right and both were wrong? Here’s why. Scouts are correct when they say you can’t teach a guy to be a good athlete. And let’s face it, to play a sport like baseball at the highest level, you have to be at least a good athlete, and I’m convinced that guys like David Wells were once good athletes, even if they look like reserves on your Beer League softball team now. On the other hand, the more results oriented people point to guys like Greg Golson and say “if he can’t recognize a curveball, he’s never going to hit”, and if you believe Golson’s numbers represent his ability, they are right too. But because of guys like Greg Maddux (he’s short, he never threw 97 mph), we’ve learned there are always exceptions to every rule. The really smart people (or lucky I suppose) are the guys who can spot the Tom Gordon’s (short righthanders are frowned upon in the scouting world) and realize the skills are there, even if the tools aren’t.

The moral of the story? It’s quite simple, despite that long-winded diatribe above. If a player doesn’t have a good set of baseball skills, the odds of him making the big leagues, let alone being a good player, are pretty slim. If a guy doesn’t have at least one above average tool, the chances of him making the big leagues, let alone being a good player, are slim. So how can you tell? Well, that’s the thing, you really can’t. Baseball America, John Sickels, and just about every other talent evaluator out there has been wrong tons of times. Hey, I loved the Kyle Drabek pick in June, I think he could be the next big thing, but he could be out of baseball in 2 years.

Sometimes we don’t realize it, but to make it to the big leagues is a great accomplishment for any player, and at some point in your baseball life, you had to impress someone (more than likely a ton of people) to even get a shot, and even then, only the cream of the crop stick at the highest level. Every year, teams draft 50 guys or so in June. They take a few more (sometimes) in the Rule 5 draft, they sign 16 year old kids from the Dominican Republic, or they spend 51 million dollars to negotiate with guys from Japan. Some guys turn into superstars, a bigger group turn into good players, a bigger group turn into fringe guys who bounce between the majors and the minors, and the biggest group of them all never make it to the Show. When looking at any minor league player, whether it’s Felix Hernandez or Junior Felix, you have to remember that in reality, we’re all just projecting, we’re all just hoping, and we’re all just guessing. If you look at everything out there, including scouting reports and a player’s complete playing history, you can make a guess as to what he’s going to become. However, you also have to prepare yourself for the letdown of that player never making it and washing out of baseball.

You’ll have to forgive me, going back and re-reading what I wrote, I feel like I was channeling Bill Conlin, and I ended up straying off topic and getting lost in my own thoughts. I hope it was somewhat readable and you maybe got something out of it. Ah, who am I kidding, no one is reading this. Anyway, my original goal of this column was to predict what the Baseball America top 10 will look like, compared to my list. So, here’s my guess, in order. We’ll know next week how far off I was.

Carlos Carrasco
Kyle Drabek
Adrian Carenas
Michael Bourn
Josh Outman
Greg Golson
James Happ
Edgar Garcia
Jesus Sanchez
Matt Maloney

Last minute addition/thought. I think BA might go ahead and put Jaramillo on this list, based on his tools and his good showing the Arizona Fall League. He had a pretty modest 2006 regular season, but he’s always had a strong defensive reputation, and he hit well in Arizona, so he might have elevated his prospect status.

Happy New Year everyone, this post will be kind of short, but it’s something I figured I’d comment on in the infant stages of this blog. One of the biggest things for me, as a big fan of minor league baseball, is understanding the context of a player’s numbers, and using said context to understand just what the numbers mean. Let me give you a quick example. Here are two theoretical pitching lines from two different minor leaguers. Which one would you choose?

Pitcher A: 130 IP, 3.78 ERA, 1.30 WHIP, 125 K, 45 BB

Pitcher B: 140 IP, 3.45 ERA, 1.28 WHIP, 130 K, 40 BB

At first glance, you’d probably take Pitcher B, right? What if I were to tell you that Pitcher B was 23 years old and pitching in the Sally League, low A ball, and Pitcher A was 19 years old, pitching in the double A Eastern League? Surely you’d take Pitcher A. A player’s statistics are the outside layer of the onion, so to speak, but you have to look a bit deeper to truly understand just what his numbers mean. It’s far more impressive for an 18 year old to hit .300 in Low A than it is for a 5 year minor league veteran to do the same. This is kind of one of those things where you say “yeah, duh”, but it’s something I often see people misunderstand when talking about prospects. By no means is this a definitive rule, but this is my “Prospect Rule” when it comes to age:

17-18 years old = Rookie Ball

18-19 years old = Short Season/Low A

19-20 years old = Low A

21-22 years old = AA

22-24 years old = AAA

25 or older = MLB

That’s a general guideline, but there are clear exceptions. Major League Baseball has placed limits on visas for foreign players, which forces teams to keep certain players out of the US, even though those players are in their system abroad. So, a 20 year old from the Dominican Republic, at a team’s academy, might have to wait to come to the US for two years, and teams are cautious with inital assignments, and may send him to Rookie Ball. That doesn’t mean that player isn’t a prospect, it means he’s a victim of circumstance or the numbers game. Another example, which is actually more common, is for a college drafted player to be sent to the lowest level of the minors after being drafted. Many college players, especially pitchers, deal with heavy workloads in college, and upon being drafted, teams tend to play things slowly at first, often times restricting pitch counts and assigning players to rookie ball or short season ball. So, a college senior, many times 22 years old, may find himself in the rookie level Gulf Coast League. That doesn’t mean he’s not a prospect, it means his team is probably being cautious.

The final thing to consider when looking at a player’s stat line is the league he plays in. All 20 HR hitters aren’t quite equal, as some leagues are more known for being offensive heavy (the PCL) while others are known more to favor pitching (the FSL), and so on. Just for reference, check out the league offensive averages for all the domestic MLB affiliated leagues:

• Gulf Coast League (RK): .247/.323/.342
• Arizona League (RK): .265/.355/.373
• Appalachian League (RK): .255/.334/.369
• Pioneer League (RK): .265/.348/.391
• New York Penn League (SS): .242/.313/.334
• Northwest League (SS): .251/.325/.366
• Midwest League (A-): .254/.325/.366
• South Atlantic League (A-): .255/.331/.376
• California League (A+): .276/.350/.414
• Carolina League (A+): .257/.336/.384
• Florida State League (A+): .255/.327/.376
• Eastern League (AA): .252/.323/.381
• Southern League (AA): .250/.323/.368
• Texas League (AA): .269/.344/.418
• International League (AAA): .259/.326/.390
• Pacific Coast League (AAA): .271/.342/.416

Just a quick guide, as I will be using these abbreviations in the future, RK stands for Rookie League, SS stands for Short Season, and the “-” and “+” represent low and high, respectively. As you can see from this list, the Texas League, the Pacific Coast League, and the California League are hitters leagues, with an average slugging % over .400. Conversely, the Southern League and Florida State League are not as hitter friendly. When looking at a player’s stats, it’s important to know where he stands in terms of his peers, as well as considering the factors previously mentioned.

So remember, when looking at a player’s numbers, consider his age and his league first, and that will give you a good jumping off point.

The “Make or Break” series is something I’m going to try out, taking a look at guys who are entering a season which, in my opinion, will help determine their future (or lack there of) with the Phillies organization. As some of you may have noticed, with the new Collective Bargaining Agreement, the rules for minor league roster management/40 man roster management have changed, and the changes are significant. Under the old agreement, players signed at age 19 or older were required to be placed on the 40 man roster after their third season of pro ball, while players signed at age 18 or younger were required to be added to the 40 man after their fourth season of pro ball. If players weren’t protected, they were eligible for the Rule 5 draft. With the new change, each classification was given an extra year, so the 19+ signing group now has 4 years of eligibility, and the 18 and under group 5 years. This change is significant in that it gives organizations an extra year of time to figure out what to do in terms of player assignments. Raw, toolsy guys who might need additional time now have that extra year before they need to be placed on the 40 man roster, while guys who are close, but maybe not ready yet, can be kept in the minors an additional year without using a 40 man spot. From a player’s perspective, this hurts them a bit, in that they are kept under control of their drafting/signing org for an extra year. It would seem to also hurt the Phillies a bit, mainly because Pat Gillick is one of the more prominent Rule 5 GM’s, however, the new configuration didn’t slow him down in the 2006 draft. So, the “Make or break” column will highlight guys entering their last “freeroll” season, meaning they don’t have to be protected. At the end of their 2007 season, they will either have to be added to the 40 man roster or be left unprotected, and thus eligible for the Rule 5 draft.

I’ve decided to start with Tim Moss, for no real reason other than he’s a guy I’ve kind of watched closely since he was drafted. Moss, as of this writing, is not on the 40 man roster and is entering his 4th season of pro ball, having been drafted out of the University of Texas in 2003. Baseball America ranked Moss the 22nd best prospect in the Phillies system at the conclusion of the 2003 season, and still considered him rather raw for a college player, especially one coming from a prominent division I program. In only 160 AB at Batavia in 2003, he put up a miserable .445 OPS. 2004 didn’t prove to be much better, as he was given the assignment of starting 2B at Lakewood and responded by posting a .683 OPS in 273 AB. He drew a mediocre amount of walks (24), but struck out a ton (75) in only 273 AB, and his .342 OB% was largely inflated by his 12 HBP. He showed almost zero power, posting an anemic .341 slugging % with just 15 doubles and 2 HR. He subsequently dropped out of the Phillies top 30 prospects, which says something considering the lack of depth in the system.

Nevertheless, the Phillies decided to promote Moss to Clearwater to begin 2005, his age 23 season. Moss responded by having a vastly better season (thanks partly to a hot start), posting an .811 OPS and showing a large improvement in the power department,, smacking 17 HR in 469 AB. Will Kimmey of Baseball America bumped Moss all the way up to the 8th best prospect in the system at the conclusion of 2005, but gave this caveat

The Future:
It remains to be seen whether Moss’ breakout was a fluke. He’ll move to Double-A in 2006 and try to show that a smallish second baseman can keep punishing baseballs.

Well, it looks like 2005 was a fluke. In his age 24 season, Moss bombed at Reading, putting up a .606 OPS in 206 AB. He was sent back to Clearwater, where he “rebounded” with a .796 OPS in 264 AB. His walk rate hasn’t improved, his strikeout rate is still waaaaay too high for a guy with little power. One of his biggest strengths since being drafted was his athletic ability and speed, (69/98 in SB in his pro career), but if he can’t hit as a 2B, his bat will certainly have a tough time playing at any other position.

So, what will happen with Moss? He turns 25 in January, and will probably start at Reading. If he flouders, he may find his way back to Clearwater, and barring some sort of miracle, will be left unprotected next December. Then again, if he hits in 2007 like he did in 2006, will anyone waste the $25,000 on him (he’ll go in the minor league portion if he gets picked at all) or just pass him over? He will always have the distinction of being the first Phillie selected in the 2003 draft, in the third round, because of a number of free agent signings during the 2002 offseason. Unfortunately, it looks like he will never crack the big leagues, unless he somehow re-invents his entire game.

Prediction: Break. Left unprotected in the Rule 5 draft, 50/50 chance he’s taken by someone in the minor league phase.

I figured if anyone actually read this, they’d ask why I omitted player “x” or “y”, etc etc. I’m sure the two that will come up first are Michael Bourn and Carlos Ruiz. So, I’ll tackle them one at a time.

Michael Bourn, OF. To me, Bourn didn’t deserve to be on this list, and here’s why. He has very limited upside. I’m sure people will question this, but here’s my line of thinking. He is now 24, and 2006 was his age 23 season. He posted a .715 OPS in 318 AB at Reading, and upon being promoted to Scranton, posted a .796 OPS in 152 AB before he was brought to Philadelphia to ride the pine. Bourn played 3 years of college ball at Houston, and over that span, his single best season was an .827 OPS in 244 AB, which was his sophomore year. He followed that with an .818 OPS in 182 AB his junior year, and was then drafted by the Phillies in the 4th round. Bourn had only 23 extra base hits in 644 career college AB’s. In college, he posted on base percentages of .431, .446, and .411, and obviously drew a ton of walks, which set up his speed (90 SB/119 attempts) well. Upon his entrance to pro ball, his plate discipline remained at both Batavia and Lakewood, posting an OB% of .404 and .433 respectively. However, the last two seasons Bourn has seen his OB% dive to .348 at Reading in 2005, and then .350 and .368 at Reading and Scranton in 2006. If you take that by itself, a .368 OB% is solid, but when you factor in that he has almost zero power (60 extra base hits in 1,014 AB’s in 2005 and 2006), he’s reduced to being a one tool (speed) player. You don’t see many teams carry a guy that can’t hit or get on base, but can steal bases. Bourn is an impressive 163/191 in stolen bases in the minors, but his future (it would seem) is as a 5th outfielder, where he will be a defensive replacement/pinch runner for guys like Pat Burrell, and to me, that doesn’t warrant his placement in this prospect list. He could surprise me, or he could turn into a guy that bounces from AAA to the bigs his entire career.

Carlos Ruiz, C. Simply put, he’s too old for these lists. He’ll be 27 on opening day, and in only the rarest cases do I consider guys over the age of 25 “prospects”. That said, I think Ruiz can be a decent regular if given the chance. His defense is what people raved about, but I don’t know that we know enough about his game calling ability based on his limited exposure last season. We’ll see.