From LA Observed:
So the other day I’m listening to 710 AM, and I hear Andrew Siciliano ask several times: “If Clayton Kershaw is untouchable, then who is touchable?” Siciliano genuinely didn’t know, and his partner Mychal Thompson couldn’t answer the question, probably because the only thoughts in head were “Kobe, Kobe, Kobe, Kobe, Kobe…”
Now, I normally like Andrew Siciliano. He does a terrific job hosting the Red Zone Channel on Sundays for DirecTV. And when he fills in for Jim Rome or when he did his old show for Fox Sports Radio, he usually constructs well-thought arguments that I respect, even if I disagree with them. I was pleased to learn recently that he would have a regular local show on KSPN 710 (even though it is with Thompson).
But I think Siciliano asked the question because he doesn’t really know who is good in the Dodgers farm system. In fact, I don’t think anyone in the LA media really knows which Dodger prospects are good, and who the team could legitimately give up for Roy Halladay.
Again, this baffles me. It would seem to me that if your profession is to cover the Los Angeles sports world on a daily basis, then you should have at least a passing knowledge of the Dodgers top prospects. I don’t expect local media types to be watching games in Albuquerque and Chattanooga. But I do expect smarter suggestions than Clayton Kershaw for Roy Halladay.
This caught my eye because it reminded me a lot of the local talk radio scene, where the number 1 host in the area knows Jesus Montero as “that catchuh in AA that everyone likes so much.” The fact that people who do not know anything about the #3 prospect in all of baseball are the ones informing the masses leads local fans to view prospects in a dismissive light. You will hear trade proposals from fans that empty a farm system because they really do not know much about the minor leaguers, and the hosts that they trust are not about to inform them.
The question, of course, is if this is a bad thing. Those of us that know all about the prospects quickly become attached to each one and their chances to prosper. We tend to overvalue them, and suddenly we are loathe to give up Austin Jackson or Austin Romine to improve the club. Considering that most prospects fail, maybe being less educated about them until they show up in the Bronx is not such a bad thing after all. While it is easy to say that a middle ground exists, it is in practice very difficult for a fan to identify that ground and stick to it.
What do you think? Does knowing a lot about prospects lead to overvaluation of those assets by the educated fan? Does it cloud our judgment of what might be a fair trade?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
9 Responses to Our Knowledge Of Prospects
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
This was a great post. I have become attached to Montero since he tore up A ball last season. For good reasons though as he played in the South Atlantic league at the age of 18, and was in the top 10 in a number of offensive categories. This guy should be as untouchable as it gets in the Yanks system (he’s put up far superior minor league numbers than Miguel Cabrera for whatever that’s worth). Austin Jackson on the other hand has got to be overrated… just look at his K/BB ratio and low slug%. I’d make A-Jax available for the right price.
Certain sites attract fans who tend to fall in love with prospects. This is one of them, RAB is another. As Moshe observes, we are likely to overvalue them.
The key question, though, is not whether we make this mistake but whether the Yankee organization can assess the talent objectively and make reasonable decisions about ceiling, probability of reaching potential, likelihood of injury, etc. We have access to some of the same data, so we can know whether Austin Jackson’s BABIP this year is a statistical outlier. But on many matters, especially pitching, we are not well equipped to judge. What we can judge is the organization’s overall performance and approach over time.
I believe it is a good thing for people to know about their prospects and other team’s prospects as well. Having that knowledge allow fans to understand trades more when players who are in the majors are being traded for players who may still be in AA ball. Without the knowledge of farm systems you have people that still believe that Joba Chamberlain should be in the bullpen because of his 2007 campaign with the Yankees on the major league level. If they knew he was a starter in the minor leagues and was on a 120 inning limit that season, there would be fewer people who would believe that he should be the future closer without giving him a chance to start. The more people know about their prospects the better understanding they have when it comes to trades and letting go of players when their contract is up. People may overvalue their prospects more but they will not rush to judge on decisions that they may have in the past.
This is basically how I feel about the issue. Knowledge is good- we just have to be careful in how we use it.
Good post, Moshe. There is definitely a middle ground, but I think people like us who place value on prospects are closer to it than the Mike Francescas of the world. I try to be as objective as possible when posting, but I still have a hard time giving up good prospects for average major leaguers. I just find the idea of 6 years of a player under team control is so valuable.
I think that is part of the split of ideals as well. I don’t think the average fan understands that when you bring a player up from your system, you get him for 6 years, and the first three he makes almost nothing.
Francesca would probably trade 6 potential years of Montero for 1 and a half years of Arroyo at 10 mil a season. Whenever I hear Mike on the radio I am just thankful it isn’t someone like him in the front office.
Agreed. I think people who follow the minors closely can overrate prospects (I’m certainly guilty of that myself). That said, I think the educated prospect follower has a much better idea of the value of a prospect than does your average talk show host who would sell the farm for the latest shiny toy on the trade block.
There is definitely a middle ground, but since we almost never see a top 10 prospect dealt (overall, not organizational), I would think that GM’s are definitely closer to the thinking of prospect followers.
I am totally amazed not only how little a Francesca knows about the Yankee prospect but how little people like John Sterling etc know yet they give their opinion as if it has any meaning.
Since when has Francesa known anything but over the top rants unsound “advice” which is usually just criticism and doing what it takes for high ratings?
I like our up and coming young guns, a few (if given a chance) may end up as the next Bernie, Jeter, Posada etc., and…maybe not! I try to follow the prospects as well as I can but, only our own. Other teams minor league players are known only from stats (most of the time), few of us have watched them play more then once.
I don’t agree with some that would trade guys like Cervelli, A-Jax, Dellin etc., for some 32+ year old player. None of these guys may end up as super stars but, do you need all super stars at every position? That’s not the way winning teams are put together.
Thought; How valuable would Duncan be if he learned to hit off-speed pitches? Things like that have happened before…see Bostons’ DH.