Because I'm nicer than Temple

http://www.baseballameric...spects/2012/2612998.html

Edit: These quips to go along with the prospects are useless, inane, and stupid. What the hell, BA?

I don't hold statistics at the lower minors with any real standard (Save for really absurd numbers, like Kershaw's GCL numbers which matched up to scouting reports in high school and the GCL).

But, I don't think D1 offers better competition than, say, Hi-A. Players are generally underworked their first two years, overworked their final two. Talent is spread across hundreds of schools, in dozens of divisions, and the season is (3?) months long. Coaches and ADs are not concerned about long-term health or development, only securing more players/money for their schools. Drafted players are filtered out as they reach AA, and AAA. And there's been plenty of busts in the minors and majors who did well in college, and college numbers do not predict future MLB success/failure.

I suppose, in summary, I don't see talent evaluations of high school/International players as worth anything without a good, professional sample size to compare it against. A college player has a bit better of a sample size and has been evaluated more closely. Predicting how players will produce in the majors is not a science, and I put more stock in numbers than opinions - especially with younger players. For instance, I'll hedge my excitement of Xander until he has another year or two of seasoning in the minors. But, he is trending up because scouts said, "He has power potential" and then posts a .509 SLG.

[I was harsh on Lavarnway entering 2011, too. I don't necessarily think he should rank higher than Blake, or than Blake shouldn't rank. But, Lavarnway is a better hitter speaking objectively. Comparable to Jesus Montero.]

WillWoodward wrote:

---

1B/DH is the least demanding defensive position and carries the least value.  If a person is limited to 1B/DH the bat needs to be excellent because the offensive standard for the position is so high (as you mention it is the most producitve position).  This does not make someone who plays 1B more valuable cause its the most productive position, it actually makes them less valuable.  

Also, "zero data" does not mean it is impossible to determine.  It just means that you cannot solely use statistical analysis and need to rely more on tools and scouting.  Really, regardless of the level, you should never use just stats to analyze a player. Just because a player who is further away has a wider range of possible outcomes does not make him less valuable then a guy who has been a pro longer and has a more limited range of outcomes.

1) Never said playing 1B adds value. I said a productive 1B was generally the most productive offensive player. So, I don't appreciate that misrepresentation of my words.

2) A player with a set path in the high minors has a better likelyhood of reaching his peak value (mostly due to more accurate evaluations by scouts, orgs, and fans) than, well you get the idea.

3) "Zero Data" referred to minimal scouting at the HS level, with 99 ABs this past year, a few workouts before the draft, and a delayed start to his pro career due to holding out. There aren't enough statistics or scouting reports to determine anything with ANY accuracy. I'm not speaking subjectively, I'm speaking from a scientific standpoint. He will be playing in a few months, so we can then get a better evaluation on Swihart. I get people are excited to see him play, but seriously, Ryan Lavarnway is a better prospect based off of any reasonable metric. "Potential" is not a metric, it is someone guessing based off of their opinions.